Category Archives: President Obama

Spain raises tax rates and revenues fall!!!!

February 13, 2012 – 7:57 am

The way to grow the economy is to cut taxes. Last night in the State of the Union address President Obama said he wanted to close tax loopholes which is another way of saying that he is not through raising taxes yet.

I’ve shared evidence from around the world (England, Italy, the United States, and France) and from various states (Illinois, Oregon, Florida,Maryland, and New York) to argue that it is foolish to ignore the Laffer Curve.

Not that it makes any difference. I’m slowly coming the conclusion that my friends on the left will never learn – in large part because they’re more interested in punishing success with class warfare tax policy than they are in collecting extra revenue for government.

But surely there are some statists who are motivated by emotions other than spite, so I refuse to give up. Let’s look at some evidence from Spain to further confirm that high tax rates aren’t necessarily the way to maximize tax revenue (this also is a story showing that tax competition between nations is a good way of disciplining governments that are too greedy, but that’s another issue).

Here are some details from a CNBC report.

Spain’s corporate tax take has tumbled by almost two thirds from pre-crisis levels as small businesses fail and a growing number of big corporations seek profits abroad to compensate for the prolonged downturn at home. …Spain has a headline corporate tax rate of 30 percent, broadly in line with other large European economies. Switzerland, however, has a headline rate of 8.5 percent, and lawyers say deductions can be made to reduce this further. “A fundamental right of EU law is the freedom of establishment. All companies and taxpayers look after their tax affairs, and if they can pay a lower rate somewhere else, it’s better for their business and natural that they would do so,” a global tax lawyer based in Spain said. …Rajoy did eliminate some corporate tax breaks in 2012, a policy he will continue in 2013, and has also brought forward some tax payments, though that could be storing up problems.

Much of the decline in corporate tax revenue can be attributed to Spain’s dismal economy, of course, which has been exacerbated by a bunch of tax hikes imposed by a supposedly right-of-center government.

The one tax rate that hasn’t been increased, though, is the top rate of corporate tax. So how can this be a story about the Laffer Curve?

Well, sometimes standing still is a recipe for defeat. And sometimes moving in the right direction isn’t enough when everybody else is going in the right direction at a faster rate.

Here’s a chart showing changes in the average EU corporate tax rate compared to Spain’s corporate tax rate.

Spain’s corporate tax rate has dropped by five percentage points. That’s progress, but other nations have moved more rapidly in the right direction. Back in 1995, the Spanish corporate rate was slightly lower than the EU average. Now it’s noticeably higher.

And as the excerpt above notes, there are nations such as Switzerland that have far lower tax rates and much better fiscal policy.

To be sure, Spain’s main challenge is the need to dramatically reduce the burden of government spending. That will help long-run growth because more resources will be allocated by private markets.

But Spain also should seek an immediate boost to growth by reducing tax rates on productive behavior. A lower corporate tax rate should be part of the answer.

It also would be a good idea for the United States.

Related posts:

The Laffer Curve Wreaks Havoc in the United Kingdom

I got to hear Arthur Laffer speak back in 1981 and he predicted what would happen in the next few years with the Reagan tax cuts and he was right with every prediction. The Laffer Curve Wreaks Havoc in the United Kingdom July 1, 2012 by Dan Mitchell Back in 2010, I excoriated the new […]

Liberals act like the Laffer Curve does not exist.

Raising taxes will not work. Liberals act like the Laffer Curve does not exist. The Laffer Curve Shows that Tax Increases Are a Very Bad Idea – even if They Generate More Tax Revenue April 10, 2012 by Dan Mitchell The Laffer Curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between tax rates, tax revenue, and […]

Dan Mitchell: “Romney is Right that You Can Lower Tax Rates and Reduce Tax Preferences without Hurting the Middle Class”

The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory Uploaded by afq2007 on Jan 28, 2008 The Laffer Curve charts a relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. While the theory behind the Laffer Curve is widely accepted, the concept has become very controversial because politicians on both sides of the debate exaggerate. This video shows […]

The flat tax will grow the economy

If we want the economy to grow then we should look closely at a flat tax. A Primer on the Flat Tax and Fundamental Tax Reform August 11, 2012 by Dan Mitchell In previous posts, I put together tutorials on the Laffer Curve, tax competition, and the economics of government spending. Today, we’re going to look […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 123)

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

Cartoons about Obama’s class warfare

I have written a lot about this in the past and sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh. Laughing at Obama’s Bumbling Class Warfare Agenda July 13, 2012 by Dan Mitchell We know that President Obama’s class-warfare agenda is bad economic policy. We know high tax rates undermine competitiveness. And we know tax increases […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 111)

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. If our […]

 

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

President Obama:“do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” (Part 1 of David Barton’s response)

February 13, 2012 – 12:07 am

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 1/6

David Barton provided an excellent response to President Obama’s assertion: “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Here it is:

Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?

Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He asserted that while a U. S. Senator, 1 repeated it as a presidential candidate, 2 and on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” 3 (He made that announcement in Turkey because he said it was “a location he said he chose to send a clear message.” 4 ) Then preceding a subsequent trip to Egypt, he declared that America was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” 5 (even though the federal government’s own statistics show that less than one-percent of Americans are Muslims. 6

The President’s statements were publicized across the world but received little attention in the American media. Had they been carried here, the President might have been surprised to learn that nearly two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation 7 and therefore certainly might have taken exception with his remarks. But regardless of what today’s Americans might think, it is unquestionable that four previous centuries of American leaders would definitely take umbrage with the President’s statements.

Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and therefore comprise only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

Defining a Christian Nation

Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 8

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” 9

Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion. 10

Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it. 11

Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

  • A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
  • The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
  • Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
  • A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
  • A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.

Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations 12 but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

1. Aaron Klein, “Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’,” June 22, 2008,WorldNetDaily (at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735).(Return)

2. David Brody, The Brody File, “Exclusive: Barack Obama E-mails the Brody File,” CBN News, July 29, 2007 (at:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/204017.aspx).(Return)

3. “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” April 6, 2009, CNN (at:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/obama.turkey/index.html).(Return)

4. “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” April 6, 2009, CNN (at:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/obama.turkey/index.html).(Return)

5.See, for example, Robert Knight, “Obama Nation’s Low View of Christianity,” Townhall.com, June 08, 2009 (at: (at:http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2009/06/08/obama_nations_low_view_of_christianity).(Return)

6. “The World Factbook (under North America; United States; People; Religions),” CIA (at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/US.html).(Return)

7. “Survey Reports: Beyond Red vs. Blue,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, March 17-27, 2005 (at: http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=953), reports that in 1996, 60% of Americans believed that America was indeed a Christian nation and that by 2004, the number had risen to 71%; the 2009 poll showed that the number had dropped to 69% and then to 62% (see “Newsweek Poll: A Post-Christian Nation?,” Newsweek, April 3, 2009 (at:http://www.newsweek.com/id/192311), in which 62% answered Yes, 32% answer No, and 6% answered Don’t Know to the question “Do you consider the United States a Christian nation, or not?” See also “This Easter, Smaller Percentage of Americans are Christians,” Gallup, April 10, 2009 (at:http://www.gallup.com/poll/117409/Easter-Smaller-Percentage-Americans-Christian.aspx), in which this statement appears: “The United States remains a dominantly Christian nation. More than three-quarters of all Americans identify as Christian,” according to this poll 77% of Americans identify themselves as Christians (55% Protestant, 22% Catholic). (Return)

8. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 13. (Return)

9. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 40. (Return)

10. Edward Mansfield, American Education, Its Principle and Elements (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), p. 43. (Return)

11. John Marshall, The Papers of John Marshall, Charles Hobson, editor (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), Vol. XII, p. 278, to Rev. Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833. (Return)

12. Stephen Cowell, The Position of Christianity in the United States in its Relations with our Political Institutions (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambio & Co., 1854), pp. 11-12, Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 260, §442. (Return)

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

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

February 12, 2012 – 9:06 am

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:

The President’s deafening silence on health care reform – Kate Nix

The President’s health care law has been dubbed his “signature legislative accomplishment”, but he barely even mentioned the law in this evening’s address.

The President did claim that Obamacare relies on a “reformed private market, not a Government program”. This is not quite the case. Obamacare dumps millions of Americans into Medicaid, a poorly performing government health program, and creates a new federal entitlement to purchase coverage in federally-created exchanges. Its rules and regulations on insurance reduce choice, hinder competition, and will result in higher premiums for families and individuals. The law’s expansion of bureaucracy and government price controls in Medicare will limit seniors’ access to providers and reduce physician autonomy. And new penalties and taxes burden business and the growth of the economy by making it harder to grow and create new jobs.

True market-driven reform doesn’t require an expansion of government. It requires empowering patients, not bureaucrats, and creating a true marketplace with a number of options, offered by competing insurers. It means saving Medicare for future generations by giving seniors choice, and transforming Medicaid to better meet need in each state. And it means enacting rational, targeted insurance market reforms that won’t increase premiums or drive insurers out of business.

The impact of Obamacare will be felt by every American. The fact that the President failed to take ownership of his health law and its consequences tonight builds the case for its full repeal and moving in a different direction in health care reform.


_________________________

I know that you do not agree with the description that the government is taking over the healthcare system but it seems to me that is going to happen. Just look at your recent decision that makes Catholic Hospitals distribute the abortion pill against their wishes.

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 4 of State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

February 11, 2012 – 9:05 am

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:

Once Again Mr. President, Warren Buffett Doesn’t Pay a Lower Tax Rate than His Secretary – Curtis Dubay

As expected, especially her sitting in the audience, President Obama trotted out again the well-worn trope that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate that his secretary. The President did so to defend his new version of the“Buffett Rule” proposal that no millionaire pay less than 30 percent of their income in taxes.

The President can claim success on this one even before he ends his speech tonight because the Buffett Rule is already soundly in place. According to the CBO, the top 1% of income earners pay 30 percent of their income in all federal taxes.

The whole idea of the Buffett Rule is based on a fallacy. One that Warren Buffett himself should know better than to propagate.  It originated because Warren Buffett claims he pays a much lower tax rate than his secretary. But he earns his income through capital gains from stock he owns in businesses. He pays a 15 percent rate on those gains when he realizes them. But before he enjoys those gains, the businesses that generate them pay the highest-in-the-world 35 percent corporate income tax rate. In reality, Buffett pays 50 percent on the income he earns- far above the rate his secretary pays.

It is unclear exactly how the Buffett Rule would be implemented if it became law. One way could be to raise the tax rate on capital gains to the middle-income rate of 28 percent, or as high as the top income tax rate – 35 percent now and scheduled to rise to 39.6 percent next year. This would be highly damaging to the economy because it would drastically raise the cost of capital causing businesses to buy less. Less capital means fewer jobs and lower wages for American workers of at all income levels.

A policy that is supposed to help the middle class would end up hurting them. Such is the way when Washington plays soak the rich with the tax code. A better approach would be to reform the tax code so it is simpler, fairer, more transparent, and pro-growth along the lines of the Heritage Foundation’s New Flat Tax.

______________

I really wish you would look at the benefits of the flax tax.

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 anything “free?”: According to Obama there is

February 11, 2012 – 8:52 am

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 religious objections to providing contraceptive and abortifacient coverage must do so anyway, his team has come up with a “compromise.”

Here it is, as reported by the Post – read carefully:

Women still will be guaranteed coverage for contraceptive services without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds.

Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.

Got that? Then who’s going to pay for that additional coverage? (It’s not “free.”) The insurance companies? They’ll simply pass the costs back to the religious employer – insofar as the employer picks up at least part of the cost of covering his employees’ health insurance premiums, as most do. So we’re right back where we started from.

This is a fig leaf, which is why progressives have quickly rallied behind the “compromise.” It’s just another example of the something-for-nothing mindset that drives their agenda. Stay tuned. We haven’t heard the end of this.

Related posts:

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 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

Ron Paul has made his position on healthcare clear in the past

Ron Paul has made his position on healthcare clear in the past Ron Paul sets the liberals straight on the solution for our healthcare problem in this video clip above during one of the presidential debates. Despite Flaws, U.S. Health Care the Best by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the […]

Obamacare at the Supreme Court

Obamacare at the Supreme Court The time is finally here for the Supreme Court to hear this case. Obamacare Has Arrived in the Supreme Court Hans von Spakovsky September 28, 2011 at 11:00 am The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) stole a march on the Obama Administration this morning by filing a petition with […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama | Edit | Comments (0)

Ron Paul on healthcare (Republican debate of 10-18-11 part 3)

Ron Paul on healthcare (Republican debate of 10-18-11 part 3) Ron Paul sets the liberals straight on the solution for our healthcare problem in this video clip above during one of the presidential debates. Despite Flaws, U.S. Health Care the Best by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, […]

Mitt Romney attacked for Romney Care (with video clip from October 11, 2011 Republican debate)

John Brummett thinks that Romney will win the nomination and probably the presidency. However, he sees Romney’s work on healthcare as governor in Massachusetts as a potential problem for him. I have been against Romney because of the reasons found in this article below which I read 3 years ago: Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare […]

Romney attacked in Republican debate of October 11, 2011 (with video clip)

I am not too pleased with Mitt Romney and the article below shows one good reason to oppose him. Can Mitt Romney Escape His Romneycare Albatross? by Doug Bandow Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New […]

Mark Pryor voted for first stimulus but silent about second

The old political playbook will not work this time around. Bragging on Obamacare and the first stimulus in Arkansas will not do much for Pryor in 2014. In this clip above Senator Pryor praises Mike, Vic and Marion. (All three of those men bailed out and Marion and Vic were replaced by Republicans and in […]

Obamacare at the Supreme Court

John Brummett has called the Republicans in Arkansas obstructionists for trying to stop Obamacare but the more I study it, the more I oppose it too. The Blue Arkansas Blog says that Mark Pryor may get defeated because of his conservative votes but it is evident that Pryor’s vote for Obamacare is the one he […]

Obamacare going down?

It is a great day if Obamacare ends up going down through the courts. Is there anyway in the world if the Founding Fathers were on the court that Obamacare would have any chance at all to become law.  In Obamacare Case, Constitution Is Victor Posted by Ilya Shapiro Today is a great day for liberty.  […]

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

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)

President Obama trampling our religious liberties?

February 9, 2012 – 10:28 am

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog and his liberal friends believe “Cries of religious discrimination are drowning out the facts, law and reality…”, but that is not the way that I see it.

Al  Mohler’s excellent article takes on President Obama:

R. Albert Mohler Jr.

 
Posted on Feb 6, 2012

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP) — In 1808, President Thomas Jefferson stated the matter bluntly: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.”

Fast forward 204 years and President Barack Obama has reversed that logic, ordering religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for employees that must include contraceptives, including those that may induce an abortion.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services made the announcement Jan. 20, stating: “Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception.”

The ruling had been much anticipated as a consequence of President Obama’s health care reform. The new law required the administration to determine what elements would be included in the mandated coverage. The administration first determined that the preventative care provision would include coverage of contraceptives. The second step was determining that this contraceptive coverage would include, as Secretary Sebelius restated it, “all FDA-approved forms of contraception.” These include drugs known as Plan B, which is taken after the possibility of fertilization, thus functioning as an inducer of abortion. The plans must also provide sterilization procedures for women without deductibles or co-payments.

The final step in the process was the decision to require all employers to provide this coverage, including church-affiliated institutions and organizations. The only exemption is offered to churches and religious bodies that neither employ nor serve any significant number of people who do not share their faith. As one church leader commented, this would not allow an exemption even for the ministry of Jesus and his disciples, who ministered to those outside the faith.

Nonetheless, Secretary Sebelius had the temerity to claim, in her statement: “This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good.”

In actuality, the Obama administration trampled religious liberty under the feet of the leviathan state, forcing religious employers to do what conscience will not allow. Religious organizations such as schools, colleges and hospitals will be required to pay for services that they believe to be immoral and disobedient to God.

In a final insult, the administration allowed that religious employers could, if qualified, have an extra year to comply with the decision. As Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah made clear, this intentionally evades the point. “The problem is not that religious institutions do not have time enough to comply,” he said, “It’s that they are forced to comply at all.”

Roman Catholic authorities were among the first to respond with outrage. Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York City, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who had personally made the case to President Obama for a broader exemption, said simply: “We are unable to live with this.”

This last Sunday, Catholics around the nation heard letters from their local bishops with the same message. The bishop of Marquette, for example, put the matter with severe simplicity: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

In other words, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops have signaled their clear intention to defy the law rather than to violate their conscience. Will evangelical Christians demonstrate the same courage and conviction?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches against the use of any artificial birth control and considers these to be assaults upon the dignity of all human life. In more recent years, evangelicals have had to rethink the contraception issue. At the very least, the issue of abortion has required evangelicals to realize that any form of birth control is a matter of great moral significance and thus of moral conscience.

The inclusion of Plan B and other forms of “emergency contraception” raises the stakes considerably, since the issue of abortion is now unavoidable. Will evangelical colleges and institutions now comply with a law we know to be both unjust and unconscionable?

The National Association of Evangelicals made a statement that described the situation well, but promised no particular action: “Employers with religious objections to contraception will be forced to pay for services and procedures they believe are morally wrong.”

The Obama administration knew exactly what it was doing. It had received no shortage of advice on this question, and advocates for a broader exemption were vocal even within the administration. Members of the President’s own party shared the disappointment in the decision. Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania lamented the administration’s “bad decision.”

Others wondered aloud why President Obama had, in the words of Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne, thrown those with religious objections “under the bus.” The editors of that paper made their own disappointment clear as well:

“The best approach would have been for HHS to stick to its original conclusion that contraception coverage should generally be required but to expand the scope of its proposed exemption for religiously affiliated employers who claim covering contraception would violate their religious views. The administration’s feint at a compromise — giving such employers another year to figure out how to comply with the requirement — is unproductive can-kicking that fails to address the fundamental problem of requiring religiously affiliated entities to spend their own money in a way that contradicts the tenets of their faith.”

The one-year extension is indeed “unproductive can-kicking,” but the far larger issue is “the fundamental problem of requiring religiously affiliated entities to spend their own money in a way that contradicts the tenets of their faith.”

Every president faces decisions that test his character and principles. President Obama has failed this test, and the results will be tragic. He has trampled religious liberty underfoot and has announced his intention to force religious institutions to violate their consciences or go out of business.

This decision will lead to nothing less than the secularization of the good work undertaken by these religious institutions. Faith-based adoption agencies, hospitals and educational institutions are being forced to secularize or cease operations already. This decision will add tragic momentum to that process.

Religious organizations are being told to comply with the government’s order, or face the consequences. A Roman Catholic college in North Carolina has challenged the Obama administration in court, an action now also taken by Colorado Christian University, an evangelical college. Concerted calls for a legislative rescue from Congress are being made.

And yet, the decision of the Obama administration is clear. The edict from President Obama to religious institutions is this — violate conscience and bend the knee to the government, or face the consequences.

We will soon learn just how much faith is left in faith-based institutions.
–30–
R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared at AlbertMohler.com. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email(baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events, Prolife | Comments (0)

An open letter to President Obama (Part 3 of State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

February 9, 2012 – 8:46 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:

Cordray On the Job? Not So Fast, Mr. President – Todd Gaziano

Obama:  “Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.”

But Cordray is not legitimately on the job, because he was never legally appointed.  What’s more, the President should not to play games with the appointment if the position is so important to fill.  The President’s purported appointment of Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three others to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when the Senate was in periodic pro forma sessions cannot be justified by any supposed emergency or any other legal argument.  (The nominations to the NLRB had only been submitted to the Senate in late December and had not even filled out their Senate confirmation questionnaires.)

The attempted, unilateral appointments were unconstitutional regardless of the President’s rationale because the Senate had not adjourned its session and had not confirmed the nominees.  And the administration’s post-hoc attempt at a legal justification by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel is not only sweeping in its claim of tyrannical power, but it is an embarrassment to the Attorney General and Department’s lawyers who normally issue such advice.  In sum, the “I can’t wait” line would not work for a third-grader trying to justify his serial rule breaking.  It certainly is not a constitutional pass for a President who pledges to support and defend the Constitution.

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

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6hwnApaoDM

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

An open letter to President Obama (Part 2 of State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

February 8, 2012 – 2:24 pm

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

Feb 8, 2012

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:

Immigration Nowhere – James Carafano

No one expected real progress from Washington in dealing with our broken borders and deeply flawed immigration system during an election year. Tonight, Obama did not disappoint. “The opponents of action are out of excuses.  We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now.”  In Washington-speak, “comprehensive reform” is just another way of saying “amnesty.” Washington tried the amnesty approach in 1986. At the time there were about 3 million living unlawfully in the United States. After granting amnesty, the number grew to three to four times that.  The lesson learned was that amnesties just encourage more illegal immigration. That’s why the American people and Congress rejected amnesty when the Bush administration proposed it—and the Congress even refused to take the proposal up for a vote when Obama pushed for it—and his party controlled both houses of Congress.

Fixing the problems requires real solutions—working with Mexico to address that country’s challenges in security, economic freedom, and civil society; creating effective temporary worker programs that get employers the employees they need when they them to grow their businesses and grow jobs; common sense border security; enforcing immigration and workplace enforcement laws; and fixing the flaws in our legitimate immigration programs. None of these solutions require amnesty first. In throwing out bumper stickers rather than offering a real vision for keeping America a vibrant nation of immigrants that respects both our laws and our sovereignty—the president proved than when he bemoaned that election year politics are killing reform he is the worst offender.

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 1 of State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

February 6, 2012 – 7:47 am

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

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

Feb 6, 2012

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

Obama’s Unwelcome Mat

by Mark A. Calabria

This article appeared in The New York Daily News on January 26, 2012.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama let us know that he will be “sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates.”

What he failed to tell us is that such a push would do nothing to turn around either the housing market or the broader economy. In fact, by continuing his trend of confusing redistribution of wealth with its creation, the effort will likely hurt both the economy and the housing market.

Let’s start with the impact on the economy at large. The logic is that when you lower mortgage rates for thousands of families, reducing their monthly payments, you thereby increase disposable income and spending. That spending then increases demand and helps turn around the economy.

In other words, it’s a no-cost stimulus.

Continued efforts to delay foreclosures only prolong the inevitable adjustment of the housing market.

The error in this logic is that it looks only at one side of the balance sheet. A mortgage is one person’s liability, but it is also another’s asset. Lowering rates may cut monthly payments, but it also drives down payments on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Since you will have made mortgage investors poorer, they will, by the same logic, reduce their spending, lowering demand.

At best, the impact on spending will be zero. But then, that’s what you get when you redistribute income.

The President wants you to believe that even if he is taking from citizen A and giving to citizen B, the latter is more deserving. But for government-owned or guaranteed mortgages, about half of those outstanding, the taxpayer is the one taking the hit. Because homeowners are wealthier than taxpayers in general, the President’s proposed redistribution is regressive.

For the remainder, the investor is often a pension or mutual fund. Why retirees should pay to benefit younger homeowners is far from clear.

The President implies his plan is free because it will be paid for by a tax on the largest banks. But again, nothing is free; for every economic action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. The tax would reduce bank equity, thereby reducing new lending. In effect, it would punish potential borrowers by reducing the availability of credit while also increasing its costs, simply to benefit existing borrowers.

Not to mention: The rewriting of existing contracts will reduce the willingness of lenders to provide new mortgages, exactly at a time when we desperately need private capital flowing into the mortgage market.

A mass refinancing is also sold as a cure for the weak housing market. Those looking to refinance, however, are not in the market to either buy or sell a home. In fact, by lowering their mortgage rates, you will reduce their offering price next time they look to trade up, because if the buyer faces higher rates in the future, prices will be depressed to compensate for giving up their current low-rate mortgage.

In other words, this could reduce future home prices.

The fundamental problem facing our housing market is a glut of homes, coupled with weak demand. The President’s plan does not change these facts. In fact, by reducing the supply of new capital for mortgages, we run the risk of reducing the demand for housing, leading to further price declines.

Mark A. Calabria is director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute.

 

More by Mark A. Calabria

It is time for Washington to understand: Underwater borrowers are not victims. They borrowed money at a particular rate and are paying back at that rate. They knew going in that to refinance, they’d need equity. If said borrowers wanted to take advantage of interest rate declines, they could have gotten an adjustable-rate mortgage. Instead, those borrowers chose the certainty of a fixed rate.

They have what they selected. That’s something that cannot be said for the taxpayers who continue to pay for Washington’s meddling in the mortgage market.

Finally, the President also promises a new financial fraud unit to investigate lenders. Appointing New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to head it may be enough to earn his support for a settlement with the banks, but it will do little to help the housing market. In fact, by increasing litigation risk for lenders, the move is likely to further reduce the supply of mortgage credit.

Continued efforts to delay foreclosures only prolong the inevitable adjustment of the housing market. If lenders have committed crimes, then they should be prosecuted in open court, not subject to back-room shakedowns.

If we wish to turn around our housing market and broader economy, we must stop taking from Peter to pay Paul and disguising it as public policy.

___________

The main points of the article above from the Cato Institute is nothing is free and you always have to look at both sides of the balance sheet.

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)

Obama should’ve let GM fail

February 4, 2012 – 11:31 am

I firmly believe in the magic of the free market. However, President Obama does not. Our other USA car companies would have been stronger now if he let GM fail. Take a look at these two articles below:

Ford (F) Sales Up, General Motors’ (GM) Down in January

Chris Preston
February 1, 2012

Fresh off their best sales year since 2008, U.S. auto makers posted mixed results in the first month of 2012.

Ford Motor (NYSE: F), the largest publicly traded automaker by market capitalization, saw its U.S. sales increase 7.3% in January. General Motors (NYSE: GM), the second-largest publicly traded U.S. auto maker, reported a 6% decline in January sales from a year ago in part because of the deep discounts the company offered last month.

Despite GM’s year-over-year sale drop-off, its stock is up 1.9% in mid-day trading today. Ford’s stock, meanwhile, is up only 0.9% after its improved sales.

GM’s stock is likely benefitting from the good news about the auto industry as a whole today.  New-vehicle sales surged in the U.S. last month.

No automaker performed better than Chrysler, which is not a publicly traded company. Chrysler’s January sales improved 44% from the same month a year ago. Ironically, booming sales at the one privately-held auto maker among America’s “Big Three” are largely responsible for boosting GM’s publicly traded stock.

GM was the lone major U.S. auto maker to report a year-over-year sales decline last month. Slower sales of its big pickup trucks – Chevy Silverado sales were down 4.7%, GMC Sierra sales dropped 10.4% — were partly responsible for the decline. Cadillac sales were also down 29% from a year ago.

Ford, meanwhile, grew its sales thanks in part to increased interest in its Focus compact car. Overall, Ford expects sales growth of between 2% and 3% in the current quarter.

______________________

Let’s Divest of GM Yesterday

Posted by Daniel Ikenson

Writing in today’s Washington Post, Charles Lane posits that the time is now for the U.S. Treasury to divest of its remaining 500 million shares of General Motors stock.  I agree with that conclusion, but not with Lane’s rationale or his recommendation for a heavy-handed, government-imposed exit strategy.

Just to recap: the Treasury recouped $23 billion of taxpayers’ $50 billion outlay when it sold GM shares to the public in an IPO in November 2010; the outstanding 500 million shares in government coffers must be sold at an average price of $54 to recover the remaining $27 billion; the IPO price was $33; today’s price is $21.69.  If all 500 million shares could be sold at today’s price, the Treasury would raise $10.8 billion, leaving taxpayers at a loss of just over $16 billion. (Of course, the sale of such a large number of shares would drive the average selling price way below today’s price, resulting in a much larger taxpayer loss.)

Lane is correct to conclude that GM’s immediate future isn’t looking quite so rosy. Demand is tanking in Europe. Concerns remain about whether GM will continue to be able to fund its $128 billion pension plan. And sales of the “game-changing” Chevy Volt have been lagging since the vehicle’s commercial introduction some 13 months ago—well before its engines demonstrated an annoying propensity to spontaneously combust. (Not to worry, says GM’s public relations team: the engines don’t seem to catch fire while being driven, only an hour or two after they’ve been parked in the garage.) Recognizing that that qualifier hasn’t been reassuring enough, GM is now offering to buy back any Chevy Volt it has ever sold, which doesn’t bode well for the bottom line, but also affirms how few of these Government Motors show pieces have even sold.

That grim analysis is the basis for Lane’s preference for government divestment now. There is more downside risk than upside potential. It is an argument based on market-timing, rather than on the principle that bad things happen when the government has a stake in the outcome of a race that it can influence. Sure, the administration would love to divest of GM at a profit to taxpayers. But the longer it is allowed to wait for that train to arrive, the greater the temptation to grease the skids.

The government should divest now. It should have divested in June, when it was first legally permissible to do so.  But the administration (following, by logic, what would have been Lane’s advice at the time) rolled the dice, expecting the stock value to rise. Instead it fell. And then there was this.

But my bigger problem is with Lane’s proposal for a managed divestment.  He writes:

It’s time to cut our losses.  Treasury should start selling its stake in GM.

And I know just the buyer: GM. The company is sitting on more than $33 billion in cash, about triple the market value of Treasury’s 500 million shares, which is roughly $10.8 billion.

Though GM wants to dedicate much of its cash to shoring up its pension plan, it could still absorb most or all of Treasury’s shares, even if Treasury charges a modest premium over the current market price, as it should.

Lane proposes this under the guise of some perverse fealty to a “free-enterprise economy,” as it would spare shareholders from the stock price-depressing impact of an unnatural 500 million share dump. But those shareholders knew the risks they were taking when they purchased GM stock in the first place. They certainly knew that the largest single shareholder didn’t intend to hold its position for very long. Lane’s argument for protecting those shareholders in the name of free-enterprise in unconvincing, if not misplaced.

Furthermore, Lane’s zeal for sticking it to GM seems to eclipse any real commitment to free markets. Forcing GM to divert resources from where management wants to commit them in order to achieve some favorable political outcome (a smaller taxpayer loss) is just as coercive as some of the administration’s actions on the road to GM’s nationalization in the first place.

GM should not be entitled to any favors or exceptional treatment by virtue of its ownership structure. To be certain of that, it should be 100 privatized yesterday. But likewise, GM should not be subject to compensatory or otherwise countervailing policies designed to punish or remove any perceived advantage. For starters, it is impossible to measure the benefits received or the penalties suffered with any precision. Demanding that GM not be exposed to special treatment goes in both directions.

 

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