Category Archives: President Obama

Video clip on youtube compares Obama to wicked king from Coldplay song

February 22, 2012 – 10:15 am

Uploaded by on Nov 9, 2010

My Democratic friends are pretty glum lately. I put this together to help them remember happier times.

DISCLAIMER: I do not own the audio and images used in this video. All audio and images belong to their rightful owner. No copyright infringement intended. This video is made for entertainment and non-profit purposes only.

_____________________

I found this video on the internet called “When Democrats ruled” and it was uploaded by on Nov 9, 2010 on youtube with these words: “My Democratic friends are pretty glum lately. I put this together to help them remember happier times.”

Then it shows these 43 events in pictures and plays the Coldplay song “Viva La Vida.”

I have written about this song by Coldplay before and I thought it was proper to discuss some of that again after first listing the 43 events pictured in the video:
1. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on taking up the gavel in January 2007. She lost her speakership as a result of the 2010 election.

3. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC), to Pelosi’s left, first elected in 1982, lost re-election.

4. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has resigned to run for Mayor of Chicago.

7. The S-CHIP bill raised taxes on cigarettes to pay for an expansion of the children’s health care program, although expenses will outstrip the new tax revenue.

10. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) lost her re-election.

12. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), first elected in 1990, lost re-election.

13. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) gave up the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee after a series of ethics complaints, although he survived a primary challenge and was re-elected in 2010.

14. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), first elected in 1976, lost re-election.

16. Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI), first elected in 2006, lost re-election.

17. The cap and trade bill passed the House but was never voted on by the Senate, and is now considered dead.

18. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), first elected in 1982, lost re-election.

19. Scandal-plagued Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) to President Obama’s old Senate seat, despite allegations that Blagojevich sought to sell the seat. Burris decided not to run for election, and a Republican won the seat.

20. Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID), first elected in 2008, lost re-election.

21. Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) lost re-election despite a strong campaign effort by President Obama.

22. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), first elected in 1984, lost re-election.

23. During President Obama’s State of the Union, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-NC) interrupted by yelling, “You lie!” Wilson apologized; despite being a top Democratic target, won re-election.

24. Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL), first elected in 2008, lost re-election.

25. Against the background of the health care law debate and despite a strong campaign effort by President Obama, Democratic candidate Martha Coakley unbelievably lost the Massachusetts Senate seat to Republican Scott Brown.

26. Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), first elected in 1974, lost re-election.

27. Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI), first elected in 1969 and the third longest serving member of the House, retired rather than face re-election.

29. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), first elected in 2006, lost re-election.

30. Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) switched to the Democratic Party after it became clear he would lose the Republican Party primary, then lost the Democratic Party primary.

31. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), first elected in 1992, retired rather than face re-election. He had been the focus of a bitter debate over the health care law’s funding of abortions.

32. President Obama and his advisers routinely speak of complete agreement among economists regarding additional stimulus spending. The Cato Institute took out an ad signed by hundreds of economists, including Nobel Prize winners, who disagreed.

33. Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), first elected in 1992, lost re-election.

34. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), first elected in 2008 and considered a progressive hero for his biting criticism of Republicans, lost re-election by 18 points.

35. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), first elected in 1992, lost re-election.

37. Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC), first elected in 1996, lost re-election. He had been caught on video manhandling students asking him questions on the street.

38. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL), first elected in 2002, chose to retire and instead run unsuccessfully for the Senate seat, coming in third place.

39. Continuing the Bush Administration policy of defending DOMA and retaining Don’t Ask Don’t Tell alienated gays who supported the Democrats.

40. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) hung on to his Senate seat but is severely weakened as Senate Majority Leader.

41. The Obama Administration described how unemployment would drop once the stimulus was enacted, but the actuals have gone in the other direction.

42. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), first elected in 1998, retired rather than run for re-election. He has been critical of his party’s legislative agenda.

43. After the election, President Obama admitted in a morose press conference that his party had suffered a “shellacking.”

__________

Here is a portion of an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin’s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it exists:
 
Belief of Eternal Punishment in Grammy Winning Song
By Everette Hatcher
 
Chris Martin of the rock group Coldplay wrote the song Viva La Vida, and the song just won both the grammy for the “Song of the Year” and “Best Pop Performance by a duo or Group with Vocals.”
 
In this song, Martin is discussing an evil king that has been disposed. “I used to rule the world…Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes…there was never an honest word and that was when I ruled the world, It was the wicked and wild wind, Blew down the doors to let me in, Shattered windows and the sound of drums, People couldn’t believe what I’d become…For some reason I can’t explain, I know Saint Peter won’t call my name,  Never an honest word, But that was when I ruled the world.”
 
Q Magazine asked Chris Martin about the lyric in this song “I know Saint Peter won’t call my name.” Martin replied, “It’s about…You’re not on the list. I was a naughty boy. Its always fascinated me that idea of finishing your life and then being analyzed on it…That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s mildly terrifying to me. And this is serious.”
 
I have been following the career of Chris Martin for the last decade. He grew up in a Christian home that believed in Heaven and Hell, but made it clear several years ago that he actually resents those who hold to those same religious dogmatic views he did as a youth. Yet it seems his view on the possibility of an afterlife has changed again….
 
Let me give a suggestion on why Chris Martin’s view may have changed. Here is a couple of scripture verses from the Bible that may give insight into a possible explanation. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God  has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).
 
Evidently  Chris Martin who said he resented dogmatic religious views a few years ago, has now written a grammy winning song that pictures an evil king being punished in an afterlife. Could it be that his God-given conscience prompted him to put that line in?
 
______________
It is my belief that unborn babies have the same human rights that we have. I do think that evil kings will be punished for their evil deeds unless they repent. Deep down I really believe that everyone knows that God exists. I am glad I ran across this video and I will continue to pray for both Chris Martin and for my president.
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

Chicago style politics?

February 22, 2012 – 9:38 am

In this video above you will see a lot of President Obama’s friends who lost in 2010 and hear the song by Coldplay talking about the wicked king who used to rule the world.
_________________________

I know that some underhanded politics has existed in Chicago for a long time and now our president is from Chicago. Are some of those same type of politics being now practiced in Washington?

 

Lachlan Markay

February 21, 2012 at 8:37 am

An examination of “administrative earmarks” around the time of congressional votes on key pieces of President Obama’s agenda suggests the White House used its power to fund local projects as a means to “buy” votes for major legislative efforts.

Administrative earmarking refers to the federal government’s allocation of funds from its discretionary budget for specific projects. The practice is less transparent than legislative earmarking, since, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[t]here is no source that defines and comprehensively identifies Administrative earmarks.”

But an analysis of grants from agencies during the early years of the Obama administration shows that the districts of moderate Democrats, whose support was so crucial for Obama during the 111th Congress, received large sums right around the passage of three key pieces of legislation: Obamacare, Dodd-Frank financial regulations, and the cap-and-trade bill.

During the run-up to votes in the House of Representatives for each of those pieces of legislation, the rate of administrative earmarking spiked. This chart shows the number of grants requested by 12 federal agencies, as documented at Grants.gov.

The number of grants given by those agencies spiked precisely when the House was considering each of the three pieces of legislation.

Even more troubling: during the same time periods, significant grant money went to the districts of numerous Democratic representatives who looked to face tough battles for re-election. The legislation Obama was attempting to get through Congress was generally unpopular, and vulnerable members needed other ways to appeal to constituents. Federal grants made for a perfect opportunity.

Then-Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA), for instance, kept his support for Dodd-Frank quiet. His website never posted a press release announcing his “yes” vote on the bill. It did, however, tout two federal grants totaling $3.6 million for businesses in his district two days before the Dodd-Frank vote.

Then-Rep. Zach Space (D-OH) hailed from a district reliant on the coal industry, which would have been hit particularly hard by cap and trade. He voted for the measure, but neglected to publicize the vote on his website. He did, however, announce eight federal grants totaling roughly $1.8 million all made during the month before the House passed cap and trade.

At least 32 vulnerable House Democrats received significant federal grant money in the periods leading up to or directly after their votes on at least one of these three pieces of legislation (see charts below), raising concerns that those grants may have been used either to encourage or reward votes in favor of the administration’s position.

The use of administrative earmarks to “buy votes” is not new. President Richard Nixon saw the practice as “a way to gain political support for Nixon’s re-election by using federal resources and grants to influence key states and voting blocs.”

President Franklin Roosevelt was an early pioneer of the political use of administrative earmarking. He “deliver[ed] large defense projects to key states whose electoral votes he wanted to secure,” according to historian Burt Folsom.

But while administrative earmarking is a practice used by nearly every administration, CRS found in a report published in April 2010 — immediately after the time period at issue — that “[b]oth the number and value of earmarks requested solely by the President increased since FY2008.” The number of earmarks had increased by 54 percent, CRS found, while the value of those requests had increased by a whopping 126 percent.

The timing of those requests also suggests political factors at play. Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Elections Commissioner, said the administration’s actions “show how taxpayer funds are used for crass political purposes — it is a rank abuse of the government’s power and another sign of this administration’s lack of a moral compass.”

While speculating on the motives of individuals responsible for these grants is difficult, this administration has a history of using its powers for political purposes. In the case of “vote-buying” in particular, the administration offered to expand Medicaid funding to residents of Louisiana and Nebraska to the tune of roughly $145 million to secure the votes of Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) for the Obamacare bill.

Member2008 vote for member2008 percentage of vote for McCain in district2004 percentage of vote for Bush in district2000 percentage of vote for Bush in districtIdentified by DCCC as vulnerable?Identified by NRCC as target?Partisan Voting Index.Alan Grayson (FL-08)52.01%47%55%53%YesYesR + 2.

Bart Stupak (MI-01)65.04%48%53%53%NoNoR + 3.

Bill Foster (IL-14)57.74%44%55%54%YesYesR + 1.

Bruce Braley (IA-01)64.56%41%46%45%NoNoD + 5.

Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)51.73%46%51%49%YesYesR + 0.

Chris Carney (PA-10)56.33%54%60%56%YesYesR + 8.

Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)55.76%48%57.3%53.6%YesYesR + 4.

Debbie Halvorson (IL-11)58.4%45%53%50%YesYesR + 1.

Frank Kratovil (MD-01)49.12%58%62%57%YesYesR + 13.

Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08)54.72%52%53%49%YesYesR + 4.

Heath Shuler (NC-11)61.96%52%57%58%NoYesR + 6.

Jim Himes (CT-04)51.32%40%46%43%YesYesD + 5.

John Boccieri (OH-16)55.36%50%54%56%YesYesR + 4.

John Hall (NY-19)58.67%48%53%49%NoYesR + 3.

John Varmuth (KY-03)59.37%43%49%48%NoNoD + 2.

Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03)51.24%49%53%50%YesYesR + 3.

Kurt Schrader (OR-05)54.25%43%50%49%YesYesD + 1.

Leonard Boswell (IA-03)56.31%45%49.7%48%YesYesD +1.

Mark Schauer (MI-07)48.78%46%54%53%YesYesR + 2.

Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15)45.94%45%50%54%YesYesD + 1.

Mike McMahon (NY-13)60.94%51%55%44%YesYesR + 4.

Nick Rahall (WV-03)66.92%56%53%47%NoYesR + 6.

Patrick Murphy (PA-08)56.77%45%48%46%NoYesD + 2.

Paul Hodes (NH-02)856.4%43%47%47%NoYesD + 3.

Paul Kanjorski (PA-11)51.63%42%47%43%NoYesD + 4.

Rick Boucher (VA-09)Unopposed59%59%55%NoYesR + 11.

Scott Murphy (NY-20)50.2%48%53%51%YesYesR + 2.

Steve Driehaus (OH-01)52.47%44%50%53%YesYesD + 1.

Steve Kagen (WI-08)54%53%57%58%YesYesR + 2.

Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)57.2%51%56%52%YesYesR + 4.

Tim Bishop (NY-01)58.38%48%49.4%43%NoYesR + 0.

Zack Space (OH-18)59.87%53%57%58%YesYesR + 7
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Obama’s budget cuts are not meaningful

February 20, 2012 – 9:02 am

If you wanted to get serious about budget cuts then why not eliminate the Dept of Education. These budget cuts mentioned below in the budget are just peanuts. We should have meaningful budget cuts that would BALANCE THE BUDGET.

Obama’s Proposed Cuts and the Scope of Government

Posted by Tad DeHaven

The president’s fiscal 2013 budget includes a 213 page document that contains 210 proposed cuts, consolidations, and other savings. That sounds like a lot until one finds out that the alleged savings would only amount to $24 billion in a $3.8 trillion budget. Not only would the cuts do little to reduce the size of government, they would do nothing to reign in the scope of government.

The following are a few examples of what I’m talking about:

  • The administration proposes to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Automotive Technology program for savings of $16 million. However, the proposed cut doesn’t reflect a sudden desire to end federal “green” subsidies to car manufacturers. Instead, the administration says “other Federal programs are better positioned to research, develop, demonstrate, and deploy a broad suite of advanced vehicle technologies.”
  • The administration proposes to cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Service’s Community Services Block Grant program from $679 million to $350 million. The administration cites reports from the HHS inspector general and the Government Accountability Office that “have documented failures in program oversight and accountability.” However, instead of proposing to completely terminate it, the administration says it’s going to fix the program and basically apologizes for having to cut it to meet discretionary spending caps.
  • The administration proposes to cut funding by $226 million for fossil fuel subsidies administered by the Department of Energy. These subsidies should be eliminated. But they should be eliminated along with all energy subsidies because the federal government should stop trying to pick winners and losers in the energy market. Unfortunately, it appears that the administration is really only interested in scoring political points with the “green” crowd.
  • The administration proposes to save a whopping $3 million by terminating the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s public broadcasting grant program. The administration correctly points out that the program is duplicative of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. However, the CPB would get another $1 million in funding for an overall budget of $445 million. In other words, the proposed cut would have practically no effect on the federal government’s subsidization of PBS and NPR.

I could go on and on with examples but there’s no point. A glass-half-full type might say, “Well, at least the administration is proposing to cut something.” Unfortunately, the glass is nowhere close to being half full – it’s empty. The administration’s relatively paltry savings would still leave the budget with a projected deficit of $901 billion for fiscal 2013. And the deficit would only be smaller than last year because the government is projected to take in more revenue – not because the government would spend less. Worse, the federal government under this budget would continue to be an intrusive, metastasizing cancer on individual liberty and the economy.

Tad DeHaven • February 14, 2012 @ 4:50 pm
Filed under: Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy

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

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

___

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

Presidents day special: A look at past presidents and my effort to write the president

February 20, 2012 – 7:29 am

1 Of 3 / Faith Of The Founding Fathers / American Heritage Series / David Barton

Take a look at the three video clips by historian David Barton and his look at our early presidents.

I also wanted to point out that I  have been writing letters on a regular basis to President Obama and I am hopeful that he will take time to at least read one of them. He does take time to read 10 letters a day and to respond to them and I do respect that he is attempting to get a pulse of the people out there in the USA.

Two of the subjects that I have been writing a lot about is President Obama’s new proposed budget and his State of the Union Speech. Both of these subjects cover some of the same issues.

Along the way I have learned a lot of facts and figures. How about this from J.D.Foster of the Heritage Foundation about Obama’s proposed budget: “To add about $3 trillion more in national debt to the roughly $5.5 trillion he added in his first term.”

I was totally against the TARP bailout for the banks but Obama expanded it to cover the Automakers too. David C. John of the Heritage Foundation noted: The proposed Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee is a tax on major financial entities, pure and simple. If it were a fee, it would be assessed on those who caused the losses to the TARP program. TARP did lose an estimated $68 billion, but a check of the details shows that losses from the TARP program for the most part came from the automobile bailout, failed housing programs, and the bailout of insurance giant AIG. It is also important to remember that while the top banks all received money from TARP, the largest of them received it under duress at the insistence of former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. There is a bit of irony that certain banks were forced to take taxpayer dollars and are now taxed for taking it. If you give that type of money to a liberal like Obama he will find excuses to come up with more taxes.

I have posted many other times on the past presidents too. Take a look below at my posts on George Washington, John Quincy Adams and other famous presidential inaugurations.

2 Of 3 / Faith Of The Founding Fathers / American Heritage Series / David Barton

Related posts:

An open letter to President Obama (Part 15 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

Sen. Paul Delivers State of the Union Response – Jan. 24, 2012 Uploaded by Senator Rand Paul on Jan 24, 2012 Sen. Rand Paul delivered the following Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address this evening President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012 President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 14 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

Leader Cantor On CNN Responding To President Obama’s State of the Union Address Uploaded by Eric Cantor on Jan 25, 2012 President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 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 […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 8, A response to your budget)

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget Uploaded by Budget GOP on Feb 13, 2012 __________________ Rep. James Lankford Responds to President Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget Uploaded by RepLankford on Feb 13, 2012 Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 7, A response to your budget)

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget Uploaded by BudgetGOP on Feb 13, 2012 __________________ Rep. James Lankford Responds to President Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget Uploaded by RepLankford on Feb 13, 2012 Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 6, A response to your budget)

1,000 Days Without A Budget Uploaded by Heritage Foundation on Jan 24, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org | Today marks the 1,000th day since the United States Senate has passed a budget. While the House has put forth (and passed) its own budget, the Senate has failed to do the same. To help illustrate how extraordinary this failure has […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 5 of State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 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 […]

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 3)

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 3) David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 3 of 5 Uploaded by ToRenewAmerica on Apr 9, 2010 Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational […]

 

George Washington at 279 (Born Feb 22, 1732) Part 11(The Wilburn Brothers, Famous Arkansans)

Steeling the Mind Bible Conference Pt 3 of 6 David Barton In the next few days I will post portions of George Washington’s Farewell speech (which really was just a newspaper article) but since it is so long I will put an outline of the speech that is provided by David Barton of Wallbuilders. Foreign “attachments” are […]

George Washington at 279 (Born Feb 22, 1732) Part 10

Amy Sancetta / ASSOCIATED PRESS No 1: Laettner sinks Kentucky NCAA East Regional final, March 28, 1992 — You’ve seen the replay: With 2.1 seconds remaining, Duke’s Grant Hill hurls a three-quarters court pass to Christian Laettner, who catches it at the free-throw line. He takes one dribble to his right, spins left and shoots […]

John Quincy Adams a founding father?

I do  not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his  father was. However, I do think he was involved in the  early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good  Morning America” today, standing […]

3 Of 3 / Faith Of The Founding Fathers / American Heritage Series / David Barton

 

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

An open letter to President Obama (Part 15 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

February 20, 2012 – 6:52 am

Sen. Paul Delivers State of the Union Response – Jan. 24, 2012

Uploaded by  on Jan 24, 2012

Sen. Rand Paul delivered the following Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address this evening

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

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

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 Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning your State of Union Speech on January 24, 2012 and here is a short portion of that article:

AWOL on  Nuclear Deterrence – James Carafano

Apparently, what the White House is doing on nuclear weapons—decisions that could affect the life and death on mankind—don’t rate a mention in the State of the Union. That is unbelievable considering the president is promoting the most sweeping changes in the American nuclear deterrent in the last 60 years.

Doggedly pursuing his “Road to Zero,” President Obama is vitiating the U.S. nuclear deterrent force.  If he gets his way, America will have a significantly smaller nuclear arsenal and atrophied delivery systems (air, land and sea). We will also never build a new nuclear weapon or construct missile defenses adequate to protect us from the global ballistic missile threat. The White House signaled as much the Pentagon’s “strategic guidance” which announced the president is not nearly done cutting America’s nuclear forces. Per the guidance: “It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory, as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy.”

That the president should make such sweeping decision to gut nuclear forces at the same time he is gutting our conventional forces should have at least rated a mention in an address to the nation.

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

Sincerely,

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

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

An open letter to President Obama (Part 14 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

February 20, 2012 – 5:00 am

Leader Cantor On CNN Responding To President Obama’s State of the Union Address

Uploaded by  on Jan 25, 2012

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

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

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 Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning your State of Union Speech on January 24, 2012 and here is a short portion of that article:

Obama Education End-run Around Congress – Lindsey Burke

President Obama’s call to reward excellent teachers and raise standards sounds great, but his administration has been orchestrating and end-run around Congress, which will ultimately limit the power of states and local leaders to implement policies that will achieve these goals. The president might not like the fact that conservatives in Congress are engaging in a thoughtful process to save states from the bureaucratic nightmare that is No Child Left Behind, but his solution – granting waivers from the White House and imposing his preferred education policy from the White House – will only bind the hands of state leaders down the road by giving more power to the Department of Education.

President Obama is pushing states to adopt national standards and test, putting Washington in control of what is taught in every public school across America. By contrast, conservatives in Congress have offered several proposals, including proposals by the House Education and the Workforce Committee to provide more flexibility from No Child Left Behind to states and local leaders to determine how education dollars are spent. There are also alternatives like the A-PLUS proposal, that would allow states to completely opt-out of No Child Left Behind, and provide genuine relief.

Not Rewarding Jobs Outsourcing, But Punishing Companies for Trying to Compete – J.D. Foster

President Obama says we shouldn’t have a tax code that rewards companies for moving jobs overseas.  He’s right, and we don’t.  In fact, we have one of the most punitive tax systems in the industrialized world for taxing the income companies make abroad.

In fact, only a few years ago, about half the industrialized countries in the world had a system about as punitive as our own.  Today, almost every one of those countries have joined the ranks of competitive nations and adopted a simpler, more pro-growth, less protectionist system called Territoriality.  Increasingly, American tax policy makers have recognized the U.S. needs to follow suit and adopt a territorial system of our own for taxing U.S. companies operating abroad.  Not to reward them for moving jobs overseas, but to avoid penalizing them for trying to compete in global markets.

President Obama wants to go in the other direction.  He wants to punish U.S. companies who try to compete abroad.  When U.S. companies compete abroad, they make their entire enterprises more competitive, including their U.S. operations.  What President Obama proposes appears and sounds like a policy to advance U.S. jobs and U.S. prosperity is, in fact, just the opposite.

__________________

You are looking for places to cut in the government and I can not think of a better place than eliminating the Dept of Education. This needs to be returned to the states.

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Is there any end to excessive deficits under Obama?

February 20, 2012 – 3:18 am

Senator Blunt Participates in Press Conference in Response to President Obama’s Budget 2/13/2012

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) participated in a press conference with GOP Senators in response to President Obama’s budget proposal on February 13, 2012.

_________________________

There is no doubt that our deficit spending will ruin us eventually. What kind of nation are we turning over to our kids and grandkids?

According to Obama’s Budget, Burden of Federal Spending Will Be $2 Trillion Higher in 10 Years

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

President Obama’s budget proposal was unveiled today, generating all sorts of conflicting statements from both parties.

Some of the assertions wrongly focus on red ink rather than the size of government. Others rely on dishonest Washington budget math, which means spending increases magically become budget cuts simply because outlays are growing at a slower rate than previously planned.

When you strip away all the misleading and inaccurate rhetoric, here’s the one set of numbers that really matters. If we believe the President’s forecasts (which may be a best-case scenario), the burden of federal spending will grow by $2 trillion between this year and 2022.

In all likelihood, the actual numbers will be worse than this forecast.

The President’s budget, for instance, projects that the burden of federal spending will expand by less than 1 percent next year. That sounds like good news since it would satisfy Mitchell’s Golden Rule.

But don’t believe it. If we look at the budget Obama proposed last year, federal spending was supposed to fall this year. Yet the Obama Administration now projects that outlays in 2012 will be more than 5 percent higher than they were in 2011.

The most honest assessment of the budget came from the President’s Chief of Staff, who openly stated that, “the time for austerity is not today.”

With $2 trillion of additional spending (and probably more), that’s the understatement of the century.

What makes this such a debacle is that other nations have managed to impose real restraints on government budgets. The Baltic nations have made actual cuts to spending. And governments in Canada, New Zealand, Slovakia, and Ireland generated big improvements by either freezing budgets or letting them grow very slowly.

I’ve already pointed out that the budget could be balanced in about 10 years if the Congress and the President displayed a modest bit of fiscal discipline and allowed spending to grow by no more than 2 percent annually.

But the goal shouldn’t be to balance the budget. We want faster growth, more freedom, and constitutional government. All of these goals (as well as balancing the budget) are made possible by reducing the burden of federal spending.

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

An open letter to President Obama (Part 13 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

February 20, 2012 – 3:00 am

Sen. Toomey responds to State of the Union address 2012

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

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

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 Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning your State of Union Speech on January 24, 2012 and here is a short portion of that article:

Before the Speech Begins – Emily Goff:

Previewing tonight’s speech this past weekend, Mr. Obama said: “We can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for…building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.”

The President must not understand that an economy based on free-enterprise with limited government involvement will, in fact, work for and benefit more than just the wealthy. His administration’s idea of an economy that works involves imposing heavy-handed government regulations and threatening tax increases at every turn. Right now, the country is experiencing the tremendous uncertainty that such policies breed. It is the bad kind of uncertainty, the kind that keeps employers from hiring and entrepreneurs from launching new businesses. It keeps the economy stuck in slow, instead of revving it up. In place of more regulation, higher taxes, and increased government spending, the President should propose to take the country in a new direction in tonight’s speech. A direction that leads to less onerous government regulation, fundamental tax reform, and a government that spends taxpayer dollars responsibly.

____________________

The Free Market benefits everyone and somehow you don’t understand that. You should watch the film series “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman and the first episode would talk a lot about this.

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

Sincerely,

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

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

We got to cut this rapid increase of government spending

February 20, 2012 – 1:02 am

Rep. James Lankford Responds to President Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut spending and reform entitlements that are needed to avoid a debt crisis.

_______________________

We need to cut the rapid increase in spending.

President Obama’s Spending

Posted by Chris Edwards

The new federal budget includes a range of accounting maneuvers to cast the administration’s 10-year projections in the best possible light. Senate Republicans point out some of President Obama’s funky accounting here. But note that the George W. Bush administration also used tricks to make deficit forecasts look more optimistic.

That’s why it’s useful to look at a president’s spending numbers for the current year and next year, rather than the make-believe numbers for later years in the budget. The chart shows total federal outlays since 2000 and Obama’s estimated spending for 2012 and proposed spending for 2013. Data are for fiscal years. Also, I’ve excluded TARP spending because reestimates of TARP costs distort the data.

Spending has gone up from $2.98 trillion in 2008—the year before Obama came into office—to a proposed $3.80 trillion in 2013. That is a 28-percent increase in five years, which represents a compound annual growth rate of 5.0 percent. Because the economy has stagnated during this period, spending has increased as a share of GDP.

Note that the lack of an overall spending increase in 2013 is not a victory for frugality. For one thing, spending on the 2009 “stimulus” bill peaked at $235 billion in 2010 and is now falling. It will be roughly $30 billion in 2013.

Similarly, Iraq/Afghanistan war costs peaked at $163 billion in 2010 and are expected to fall to $97 billion by 2013. There have been similar drop offs in spending for recession-related programs such as unemployment insurance.

Thus, as stimulus, war, and recession-related costs are falling by hundreds of billions of dollars, President Obama is using the money to increase spending on other programs. We have run deficits greater than a trillion dollars four years in a row, and yet the president seems oblivious to the need for real spending cuts.

Here’s a better fiscal plan, which focuses on ways to cut spending and balance the budget.

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

An open letter to President Obama (Part 12 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

February 20, 2012 – 12:40 am

Rep Michael Burgess response

Uploaded by  on Jan 25, 2012

This week Dr. Burgess provides an update from Washington and responds to President Obama’s State of the Union address.

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

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

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 Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning your State of Union Speech on January 24, 2012 and here is a short portion of that article:

What’s Missing? Entitlement Reforms – Patrick Knudsen

Conspicuously absent from the President’s address was any acknowledgement of the government’s biggest challenge: the imperative of entitlement reform. This may not be surprising for a President who never tires of finding new ways to expand the federal government. But the omission reflects an unwillingness to face up to “the most predictable crisis we’ve ever had,” in the words of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan.

Runaway entitlements are the principal drivers of today’s record spending and debt. Over the next 10 years, entitlement spending will total about $26 trillion; and in2021, spending on all entitlements will total about $3.3 trillion, nearly the size of the entire budget today.

Spending on the three largest entitlements – Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security – will outpace inflation and the growth of the entire economy; and by the middle of this century, those three programs alone will spend as much as the total annual average of tax revenue over the past 40 years – putting the squeeze on all other policies (such as national defense and low taxes).

But the President, who must lead the drive for a solution, ignores it. Indeed, his premier achievement – nationalizing health care – will worsen the problem.

Nor can the problem be solved with modest trims around the edges of these programs. They need to be fundamentally restructured. The President’s failure to recognize and speak forcefully to this challenge suggests, regrettably, that his budget will skip it as well.

Even More Spending – Patrick Knudsen

As he has done throughout his tenure, the President keeps finding ways to advocate more spending – just the opposite of what the country needs. He clings to the view that innovation and economic growth require Washington’s direct involvement – without the nurturing and guidance of his progressive politics. He simply does not trust entrepreneurs, investors, and free markets.

He wants to pour more Washington money into education; more into science and research, and high tech manufacturing; more roads, bridges, and high-speed rail such as the ever-more-costly boondoggle in California.

He believes that Keynesian-style deficit spending is still needed to generate more demand and boost the economy – despite overwhelming evidence to the opposite. His 2009 stimulus bill is a monument to this failed economic thinking.

Besides, this spending will have to be paid for, and since Obama has yet to propose a serious reduction to federal spending that means it would likely be through higher taxes or more debt – and both will further drain the economy.

__________________________

You got to take the bull by the horns and reform entitlements. There is no other choice.

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

Sincerely,

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

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