Category Archives: President Obama

33rd ANNUAL MARCH FOR LIFE:Little Rock Sun 2pm begins at Capital and Louisiana Streets

January 18, 2011 – 10:37 pm

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com

President Obama on abortion

Adrian Rogers (former President of Southern Baptist Convention): “I am not as afraid of the Communist, the Russians, the Chinese, as much as I am afraid of God.  If God be for us, who can be against us?  If God be against us, then who can be for us?  It is God I am afraid of.”

I personally started walking in these marches in 1983. There have been some years when the weather was really bad and I missed. I took my four kids to many of them. It is always an emotional time.

I remember especially 1993’s March since I felt that for the first time since Roe v Wade that Arkansas could have a major impact. I knew that Bill Clinton had resided in our city for many years and was a Southern Baptist as I was. In fact, I learned a few days later that my former pastor Adrian Rogers had a chance with several other pastors to meet with the incoming President a few days earlier in Little Rock.

My friend, the Rev Sherwood Haisty Jr., and I had a chance to eat lunch with Dr. Rogers the next Thursday and he told us what President Clinton had to say on the issue of abortion. Before the meeting with the pastors began he outlined his position on abortion which was basically pro-choice. In others words, President Clinton was opening the floor for other subjects but that issue was already settled.

Looking back to the 8 years of Bill Clinton, he did everything he could to further the pro-abortion agenda. Some day his wife may be president and I have no reason to believe that she will not try to do the same.

Arkansas Right to Life press release below:

On Sunday, January 23, 2011 thousands of Arkansans will take to the streets of Little Rock at 2:00 p.m. in a peaceful and prayerful witness to the sanctity of human life for the 33 rd Annual March for Life. Sponsored by Arkansas Right to Life, the march begins at Capitol and Louisiana Streets, proceeds down Capitol Avenue approximately 13 blocks and concludes at the steps of the State Capitol for a brief program.

Wayne Mays, president of Arkansas Right to Life, will lead the march along with invited dignitaries and other special guests. The march will proceed as planned regardless of weather conditions.

Princella Smith, of Wynne, will be our keynote speaker. Interested in politics very early in her life, Ms. Smith became a prime time speaker at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City addressing the nation on the same night as First Lady Laura Bush and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Just last year , Princella vied to become America’s youngest Member of Congress as a candidate for the First District of Arkansas at age 26. Smith is a regular political contributor and has been featured and/or written for several national media outlets including: FOX News, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, BET, Bloomberg News, PBS, NPR, USA Today, among other local, national and international media outlets.

Among are special invited guests are: U.S. Senator John Boozman, Congressmen Rick Crawford, Tim Griffin and Steve Womack, Arkansas Lt. Governor Mark Darr, Secretary of State Mark Martin and pro-life members of the Arkansas General Assembly.

Also participating in the brief program will be Bishop Anthony Taylor, Bishop of the Diocese of Little Rock and Cathie Dorsch, Associate Minister at Agape Church in Little Rock. Song selections will be performed by the Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar Family of Springdale, Arkansas.

“The pro-life movement is energized with the newly elected, more conservative Congress and Arkansas General Assembly and ready to enact legislation that will reject the pro-abortion policies and health care mandates of the Obama administration that seek to federally subsidize abortion on demand and ration the healthcare treatments of the disabled, chronically ill and aged,” said Rose Mimms, Executive Director of Arkansas Right to Life.

The state’s leading voice of the voiceless Arkansas Right to Life is dedicated to protecting all human beings threatened by abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

Arkansas Right to Life, the state’s oldest and largest pro-life organization,
is an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee.

Dr. John Piper’s response to President Obama’s statement on abortion

__________________________________________________

Today I have a profile from Ballotpedia on St lawmaker Jonathan Barnett.

Jonathan Barnett

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Jonathan Barnett
Arkansas House of Representatives District 97
Incumbent
Assumed office
2009
Current term ends
2010
Political party Republican
Profession General Contractor
Website House site

Jonathan Barnett is a Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives. He has represented the 97th District since 2009 and currently serves as Assistant Speaker Pro Tempore.

Issue positions

Barnett did not provide answers to the Arkansas State Legislative Election 2008 Political Courage Test. The test provides voters with how a candidate would vote on the issues if elected.[1]

Committee assignments

Sponsored legislation

Barnett’s sponsored legislation includes:

  • HB 1612 – “TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR RECEIPT OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS.”
  • HB 2209 – “TO EXEMPT EARTH MISSION, INC. FROM THE SALES AND USE TAX.”
  • HB 2210 – “TO EXEMPT THE MASONIC LODGE OF ARKANSAS FROM THE PROPERTY TAX.”

For a full listing of sponsored bills, see the House site.

Elections

2010

See also: Arkansas House of Representatives elections, 2010

Barnett won re-election to the 97th district seat in 2010. He faced no opposition.[2]

2008

On November 4, 2008, Barnett won election to the 97th District Seat in the Arkansas House of Representatives, running unopposed in the general election.[3]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Adrian Rogers, Bill Clinton, Prolife | Comments (1)

The Estate Tax Discourages Savings and Investment

January 13, 2011 – 12:14 am

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com

Series on Estate Tax Part 2

Grande Harvest Wines owner Bruce Nevins discusses the costs, time, and stress the estate tax, also called the death tax, places on his business, and the effect it will have on his family after he dies. It destroys investment in the economy.

Tomorrow I want to get back on my series about the Arizona tragedy being used by the liberals to blame the Republicans for creating an atmosphere of hate where people get hurt physically. However, today I want to drive home this point that liberals seem to stick to their liberal philosophy even if people get hurt financially.

I have wondered why liberals never seem to get the idea of people acting in their own self interest. When taxes are lowered then revenues many times go up because rich investors get out their wallets and invest further in our economy. I will give a perfect example later in this post.

It seems to me that liberals like Max Brantley, John Brummett, Gene Lyons, Pat Lynch,  Ernest Dumas, and Mark Pryor seem to agree with President Obama that we should raise taxes for reasons of “fairness” even it hurts our economy.

In this series on the Estate Tax I will be quoting portions of the article “The Economic Case Against the Death Tax,”(Heritage Foundation, July 20, 2010) by Curtis S. Dubay. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Capital is any resource that individuals or businesses use to generate income. Like anything else, when the income accruing to capital is taxed, its price rises and less of it is purchased. Less capital means slower productivity growth, lower wages, and fewer jobs. As such, taxes on capital should be minimal or nonexistent. In fact, there is a general consensus among economists that there should be no taxes on capital. The death tax:
Discourages savings and investment.

For those Americans who think that their estates may one day be subjected to the federal death tax, the tax sends a signal that it is better to consume today than invest and make more money in the future. Instead of putting their money in the hands of entrepreneurs or investing more in their own economic endeavors, Americans are encouraged to consume it now rather than pay taxes on it later.

Allan J. Favish wrote a brilliant article (“Obama on Taxes,” Dec 16) in which he showed how President Obama has contradicted himself lately concerning his view on raising taxes on the rich for purposes of “fairness.”

Basically President Obama said in his Democratic Presidential Debate in 2008 that as president he would still raise the capital gain tax even if it lowered the revenue received. Here’s is the transcript from the debate broadcast by ABC News on April 16, 2008 and moderated by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos:
GIBSON: All right.  You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax.  As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent.  It’s now 15 percent.  That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money.  And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals.  And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.  That’s not fair.
And what I want is not oppressive taxation.  I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.
And you can’t do that for free.
OBAMA: And you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren, and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about.
And that is irresponsible.  I believe in the principle that you pay as you go.  And, you know, you don’t propose tax cuts, unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals.  And you don’t increase spending, unless you’re eliminating some spending or you’re finding some new revenue.  That’s how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush.  That is helping to undermine our economy.  And it’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.
GIBSON: .But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up
OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not.  It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.  I think the biggest problem that we’ve got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we got have a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.
And if we can stabilize that market, and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we’ll see stocks do well.  And once again, I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.
_____________________________
Today I am profiling State lawmaker Lane Jean.Lane Jean

Lane was born in Columbia County. He is a graduate of Magnolia High and Southern Arkansas University. Lane’s work experience includes working on his family cattle farm and employed in his father’s (J. L. Jean) logging contractors business.
His government experience spans over 22 years. Lane is currently serving in his 15th year as Mayor of Magnolia, Arkansas. Two terms as a member of the Columbia County Quorum Court. Lane also served four years as a Columbia County Election Commission.

Lane was appointed to a four-year term by then Governor Mike Huckabee to the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. He also served five years on the Southern Arkansas University Board of Trustees. Lane currently serves on the board of Magnolia Economic Development Corporation, President of the Lower Southwest Arkansas Solid Waste Board and a member of the executive board for the Southwest Arkansas Planning and Development District.

Lane’s other business and civic interest includes President of Reeves Land and Timber Company and a Board Members of Farmers Real Estate Corporation. Lane is also a member of the Magnolia Rotary Club and board position on our local WAGE and Adult Education Boards.

Lane is married to the former Judy Leonhard of McNeil, Arkansas. Lane and Judy have two children, Kelli Taylor and Gray Jean. They also have one grandson, Charlie Taylor. Kelli is married to Mark Taylor of Magnolia.

Lane and Judy are members of the Jackson Street Church of Christ in Magnolia, where Lane serves as a Bible school teacher for youth.


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

PART 2: American Exceptionalism? Not exceptional people, just exceptional principles!!!

January 1, 2011 – 3:54 am

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com

Francis Schaeffer points out how Communism is based on materialism which leads to repression while countries with a reformation base truly have a solid basis for law and the people enjoy freedom.

Max Brantley (Arkansas Times Blog, Dec 14) observes:
Is the U.S. “Special in the world, divinely blessed, better than the rest,” as Brummett defined the term? A reflexive yes ignores the reality of the specifics, however great a beacon of hope and freedom we have been, are and hope to be. Demonstrably — take education and health care — all the specific comparisons can’t be answered in the affirmative. After arrogance, this is the biggest problem with the exceptionalism argument. If you’re already perfect, what need is there to seek to improve or learn from others who might have a better idea?

My quick answer to the statement about the USA woeful education performance would be that our public schools have been a victim of a lack of free enterprise competition and an infiltration of humanism.

First, the inexpensive voucher schools in Washington D.C. that President Obama recently closed had been much more successful at educating the kids than the surrounding public schools.

Second, inner city kids suffer the most when there is no school choice.

Third, the problem in the USA has not been the lack of funding. Caroline Hoxby, Ph.D., the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor of Economics at Stanford University has correctly noted:“The United States spends more money per pupil on public K-12 schooling than any other country in the world. Some of the school districts that are the most embarrassing for Americans like Newark, NJ or Washington D.C. are some of the most expensive in the world. So it is hard to make the case that the problem America has is just that it is not spending enough money… We have raised per pupil spending (in real inflation adjusted terms)  every single year for the last 40 years… (Not having enough money) is not the source of the problem for American education.”

There are actually two reasons our public education in the USA has suffered. The first was because the free enterprise system has not been allowed to work its magic as shown above. The second was because of the humanistic elements that have been allowed into our schools. This goes back to the two principles that I talked about in the first installment of this series on “American Exceptionalism.

First, our country was founded on a reformation base.

Second, our country allowed free enterprise to flourish without excessive government controls.

Since I have already discussed this second point at length in regard to the schools, I will concentrate on this first point.

Notice in the video above is from the episode “The Revolutionary Age” from the film series “How Should We Then Live?” by Francis Schaeffer that a system like communism is based on a materialistic base, and must use internal repression to keep in power. Communism always comes in with promises, but what you end up with is a loss of freedom of the press and freedom of religion too. This can be seen even today in the 5 communist countries which exist.

However, when you contrast these communist countries to those countries that have a reformation base you find a large difference in protection of human rights. Francis Schaeffer has pointed out that in these countries (with the reformation base ) the biblical basis did give absolutes upon which to combat injustice. In contrast, the humanist has no way to say that certain things are right and certain things are wrong. This is because for the humanist the final thing that exists is the impersonal universe and that is silent and neutral about right and wrong and about cruelty and noncruelty.

Earlier I said that the schools in the USA are suffering because of a lack of competition, but they are also being hurt by the teaching of humanism in the area of moral choices. They are being taught that we all are a product of chance and there are no absolutes.

The Bible tells us, “{God} has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The secularist calls this an illusion, but the Bible tells us that the idea that we will survive the grave was planted in everyone’s heart by God Himself. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that God has instilled a conscience in everyone that points each of them to Him and tells them what is right and wrong (also Romans 2:14 -15).

It’s no wonder, then, that a humanist would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” THE HUMANIST, May/June 1997, pp. 38-39)

Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. However, I know how moral relativism works, and I expected that Mrs. Leitner would soon be challenged by her fellow humanists. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (THE HUMANIST, September/October 1997, p. 2)

Do you see where our moral relativism has taken us in the USA?

I had a chance back in 1991 to visit with a gentleman by the name of Robert Lester Mondale while he was retired in Missouri.  He was born on May 28, 1904 and he died on August 19, 2003. He was an Unitarian minister and a humanist. In fact, he was the only person to sign all three of the Humanist Manifestos of 1933, 1973 and 2003. In my conversation with him he mentioned that he had the opportunity to correspond with John Dewey who was one of Mondale’s fellow signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto I.

I really believe that the influence of John Dewey’s humanistic philosophy has won the battle of the textbooks in the USA today (with evolution teaching being a key component). As a result, we have people like humanist Abigail Ann Martin who wrote, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?”

(I wanted to recommend an article “Making a monkey out of Darwin” by Adrian Rogers. This article shows the damage that the belief in evolution has done.)

_________________________________________________

I have  been profiling State Lawmakers and today is Saline County’s Kim Hammer.
It is not a statement of rhetoric, but a statement of fact, that America is heading in the wrong direction. We are moving away from what our founding forefathers established this nation to be in principle, practice, and proper pride–all under the open practice of seeking God’s divine leadership. Without shame or apology, I openly state that I believe we as a nation have also drifted away from giving God His proper place in the decision-making process of the establishment of the laws that govern us. And we are reaping the consequences of our actions.

We who believe that “powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1) have a civic duty to come forward and help perpetuate what the founding fathers of America paid an ultimate price to birth.

We are at a crossroads in America’s history where those who believe in heart, not in lip service, that we are still “One Nation Under God” must rise to the occasion and not idly stand by and let America be dismantled one decision at a time. It is not so much a matter of party or person as it is a matter of principle and purpose. People and party affiliations have a tendency to be bartered away, but principles of value will withstand the test in the moment of decision and the end result will reflect that philosophy.

As citizens of Arkansas we must elect people into positions who are willing to stand by their convictions. Those convictions must rest in a belief that if we want to claim to be “One Nation Under God,” then we must allow God to be introduced into convictions that guide our decisions or else we have become a state and a nation where everyone does that which is right in his own eyes.

This is why I am asking you to vote for me to represent you in the Arkansas House of Representatives, District 28. I may not vote every way you want me to, but it’s not about you and me. It’s bigger than that. It’s about taking one issue at a time, weighing it out against how a decision will affect Arkansas and America emotionally, spiritually, and physically-one vote at a time.

I believe that there is still power in the vote and that this nation, one state at a time, one elected official at a time, can redirect America back onto the course that reflects we are “One Nation Under God”.

Respectfully,
Kim D. Hammer

Friday, 27 August 2010

Kim Hammer of Benton has worked his whole life helping people with their physical and spiritual needs. Now Hammer wants to help more people in the area by being a voice for District 28 in the state House of Repre-sentatives. He will face state Rep. Barbara Nix, D-Benton.
Hammer ran for the position in 2006 but did not make it, he said. Being that close to attaining the position has motivated him to run again, along with other incentives.
“I felt that for my life and where I am in my life and my convictions about the direction our country is going in, I felt like this was the right time to (run again),” he said.
Hammer spent the early years of his life working as an emergency medical technician and eventually earned the rank of being a nationally Registered EMT Intermediate — and he began only as a volunteer.
“I started because I wanted to give to the community. From there I had a conviction to keep doing it and I worked full time at MEMS in between churches. I let my license go in 1995, though.”
He now works full time as the chaplain at Saline Memorial Hospice House in Bryant. He is a graduate of Trinity College in Indiana and has served several churches throughout the state.
His Christian beliefs are something that he will not be afraid to bring into House discussions, he said.
“I think that there needs to be a conviction of appreciation for a place of God in government. I’m not an extermist, but I’m not going to apologize for what I believe in. I’m not going to apologize for thinking that God has been pushed out of the decision-making process,” Hammer said.
He added, “I have Christian convictions that I do not believe need to be imposed on anyone, but I do not believe it is right to back up from them. I believe there are Christian convictions that are represented in the decision-making process when it comes to the law, but that doesn’t mean I want to cram anything down anyone’s throat — but I’m tired of backing up.”
If elected, Hammer said he will take these beliefs to the House to help people in District 28, especially people with a palliative time of life and children in need. Hammer once worked for a school-based mental health firm and, as he said, “has a real conviction for helping children.”
If he wins the House seat, Hammer doesn’t have a firm agenda of things to get done, but he says he does have some ideals he will stand by firmly.
“I believe in strong, family values, beginning with protecting the definition of the union of marriage. I’m also strong on state sovereignty and believe that the state has to stand up against federal government that is going to impose hardships on us. We have to present a strong front as a state,” Hammer said.
One of his main objectives, he said, is to go through the checkbooks of the state government and see where money is not being spent wisely.
“There are a lot of good things that can be done with money that might be wasted. I want to scrutinize the budget and try to get funding for things such as non-profit and faith-based initiatives. I want to see where wasteful spending is happening and put it in the hands of those who need it,” he said.
Hammer plans to attend several local events, including the Salt Bowl Tailgate, the Saline County Fair and Old-Fashioned Day and would enjoy meeting any residents or answering questions. To find out more about Hammer, visit http://www.hammer4house.com.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Adrian Rogers, Francis Schaeffer, Vouchers | Comments (0)

Ernie Dumas: Obamacare will help Arkansas

December 28, 2010 – 12:48 am

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

Great clip from Milton Friedman in speech at Mayo Clinic in 1978



On July 8, 2010 Ernie Dumas wrote the article “Health law gains acceptance in Arkansas: There is a lot to like, including cash infusion for state” which was published by the Arkansas Times. Over and over in this article the praises of Obama’s health care law are sung. However, if the past can be used as a predictor of the future then the article misses the mark. Furthermore, in that article Dumas attempts to get Governor Beebe to endorse his thesis but the governor is wise enough not to jump on board so fast. Dumas wrote:

He still is concerned that a sharply expanded Medicaid program will put a significant burden on the state, even if it is eight or nine years away.

“It would be easy for me to say that it will be fine until 2017 or later since I won’t be here,” Beebe said. “I may not be here next January and for sure I won’t be here in 2017. But I have a responsibility to look at the impact things will have long after I leave.”

Unlucky for Dumas just two months later the Associated Press reported on September 9, 2010 the verdict on the cost of the new health legislation according to a government forecast. The conclusion was that “the nation’s health care tab will go up–not down –as a result of President Barack Obama’s sweeping overhaul.” The Chicago Tribune went on to comment:

“Well, duh. You can’t expand coverage by 32 million Americans and figure that will hold costs down. The Democrats sold health care to Americans with a lot of fuzzy accounting and shaky assertions about how relatively inexpensive all this would be”( September 23, 2010).

That reminds me of a youtube video I saw of Milton Friedman in a speech he delivered at the Mayo Clinic back in 1978. In it he referred to a british study by a Dr Max Gammon.

Dr. Max Gammon worked in the British National Health Service (NHS), and his study of it, beginning in the 1960s, led him to enunciate what he called “the theory of bureaucratic displacement.” In his words in what later became known as Gammon’s Law:

“In a bureaucratic system, an increase in expenditure will be matched by a fall in production. Such systems act rather like ‘black holes’ in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources and shrinking in terms of ‘emitted production’.”
Dr. Gammon measured the NHS’s productivity by comparing two simple variables: inputs (defined as the number of employees) and output (measured as the number of hospital beds). He found that while inputs had increased sharply, output had actually fallen.

In fact, from 1965 to 1973 the input went up with hospital staff going up by 28% and administrative staff by 41% but the output (measured by beds occupied daily) went down by 11%. It was not for a want of patients since there was during that time period an average waiting list of 600,000 people.

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

Pryor ignores the will of the people to vote for Obamacare

December 27, 2010 – 4:25 am

Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

This video of Mark Pryor stumping for Obama for President just shows how out of touch he is with Arkansas voters. President Obama lost Arkansas in a landslide.

Mark Pryor said on Arkansas Week in Review which was broadcast on AETN on Dec 24th, “We owe the American people good government and to try and be productive. I think one reason why you saw the elections turn out the way they turned this November was because I think people all across America feel like the folks inside the beltway are  not listening. I try to listen and to be home as much as I possibly can.”

You would think this would be sound advice for a politician to follow. However, didn’t Senator Mark Pryor ignore polls showing the American people did not want Obamacare?

On September 17, 2009 just a few months before the healthcare vote this article was released, “Fox News Poll: Americans Prefer Current System to Obama’s Health Care Plan.” Here is a portion of that article below:

Most Americans see no upside for their family in the health care reforms being considered in Washington and don’t believe President Obama when he says his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. The majority of Americans believe they will have to make changes to their health care coverage if the president’s plan is passed.

These are just some of the findings of a new FOX News poll released Thursday.

More Americans would rather Congress do nothing than pass Obama’s plan: 46 percent to 37 percent of people polled say they prefer the current health care system to the one the president has proposed.

Similarly, more people oppose — 48 percent — the health care reform legislation being considered right now than favor it — 38 percent. While most Democrats — 65 percent — favor the reforms, majorities of Republicans — 79 percent — and independents (55 percent) oppose them.


This is not surprising given less than one in four Americans (22 percent) think they would be better off under the reforms, and many (60 percent) think they will probably have to make changes to their health coverage despite Obama’s assurances that they will not have to. In addition, a sizable majority (67 percent) thinks the president’s plan will increase the national deficit.


Next on November 2nd at the ballot box the American people showed the Democrats that they were not listening as Senator Pryor admits correctly. Take a look at this article by Julian Pecquet below:


Democrats who voted for their party’s signature domestic achievement dropped like flies throughout the evening, adding credence to Republicans’ claim that the American public wants them to repeal healthcare reform.

The law’s proponents read the writing on the wall early on and acted quickly to pre-empt that impression.

“American voters’ focus during the elections was overwhelmingly on jobs and the economy, and this will remain the key public concern until the economy substantially improves,” Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said in a 10:30 p.m. statement. “As pre-election polls reflect, calls to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are not supported by America’s voters — and they certainly were not the motivating factor in the elections.”

The evening started pretty well for Democrats who voted for healthcare reform, with Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky handily winning reelection with 54.5 percent of the vote. Yarmuth’s seat was listed as “likely Democratic” in the Nov. 1 edition of The Cook Political Report, one of 77 “yes” vote seats in play Tuesday evening.

Things quickly went downhill from there.

Within hours, a dozen members had lost reelection, including four freshmen elected in the 2008 Democratic wave: Reps. Tom Perriello and Glenn Nye of Virgina and Suzanne Kosmas and Alan Grayson of Florida.

They weren’t alone: Democratic Reps. Baron Hill (Ind.), Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.) and Allen Boyd (Fla.) quickly joined them. So did Pennsylvania Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper, Chris Carney and Paul Kanjorski, all of whom were main targets of the anti-abortion-rights group the Susan B. Anthony List.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who voted for the bill when her vote was crucial but later voted no on reconciliation, was also defeated.

The trend is even worse when factoring in yes votes who weren’t running for reelection.

Retiring Rep. Bart Gordon (Tenn.) left Democratic candidate Brett Carter to get pulverized by Republican Diane Black, 29.3 percent to 67.5.

Democrats did, however, pick up Republican Rep. Joseph Cao’s seat in Louisiana. Cao had voted yes on the bill in November — the only Republican to do so — but changed his vote when the bill returned before the House in March.


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

Brummett: Jack up Taxes of Wealthy to reduce Deficit

December 18, 2010 – 5:20 am

Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

(Candidate Obama wanted to raise capital gains tax for purposes of fairness)

John Brummett in his article “Punish Less and Persuade More,” (December 13), asserted, “…you do not raise much money toward reducing the deficit by a nickel-and-dime tax policy on the fellow sweating his checkbook balance with an income of $50,000 a year….You jack them (now referring to those making more than $250,000) up a little more and suddenly you have generated hundreds of billions of dollars towards deficit reduction. You tax the rich more because that is where the money is and they can spare it. This is not confiscation. This is not a fine. It is common sense.”

However, the figures do not seem to back up Brummett’s assertion. The tax figures for 2007 seem to indicate that by reversing the tax cuts on the rich you could possibly pick up $36 billion while if you did the same to the middle class you could pick up $114 billion.

I am responding to these liberal assertion with a portion from an article published January 29, 2007 called, “Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts” by Brian Riedl. Riedl is the Grover Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation and Riedl’s budget research has been featured in front-page stories and editorials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.

Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Many critics of tax cuts nonetheless support extending the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent income tax bracket because these policies strongly benefit low-income tax families. They also support annually adjusting the alternative minimum tax exemption for inflation to prevent a massive broad-based tax increase. These critics assert that repealing the tax cuts for upper-income individuals and investors and bringing back the pre-2001 estate tax levels can raise substantial revenue. Once again, the numbers fail to support this claim.

In 2007, according to CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation data, the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 10 percent bracket, and AMT fix will have a combined budgetary effect of $114 billion. These policies do not have strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect.

By comparison, the more maligned capital gains, dividends, and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion even before the large and positive supply-side effects are incorporated. Thus, repealing these tax cuts would raise very little revenue and could possibly even reduce federal tax revenue. Such tax increases would certainly reduce the savings and investment vital to economic growth.

The individual income tax rate reductions come to $59 billion in 2007 and are not really a tax cut for the rich. All families with taxable incomes over $62,000 (and single filers over $31,000) benefit. Repealing this tax cut would reduce work incentives and raise taxes on millions of families and small businesses, thereby harming the economy and minimizing any new revenues.

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

Max Brantley is sharp critic of Charter and Voucher Proposals: Charter Schools Series pt 1

December 18, 2010 – 1:50 am

Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

(Glenn Beck story on DC Voucher program)


Max Brantley noted on the Arkansas Times Blog on Thursday, Decemer 16th that “the Milwaukee school voucher program is cheaper than the cost of regular Milwaukee public schools.” This kind of evidence also encouraged the proposals concerning voucher programs throughout the country. However, Brantley is a very sharp critic of both the charter and voucher schools through out the country. Therefore, I want to start a series of articles looking at what the liberals in Arkansas have to say about these schools, and then I will take a look at the evidence out in the real world.

Today I wanted to share an article and video concerning what President Obama did to kill the successful Washington D.C. voucher school program.

“Obama’s Compromise on D.C.’s School Vouchers Program,” (Washington Post, May 10, 2009) was written by Andrew J. Coulson who is the Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. Below is that article:

President Obama’s decision isn’t much of a compromise. NEA President Dennis Van Roekel wrote to congressional Democrats demanding that they kill the D.C. voucher program, and they complied. Obama has merely tried to alter the manner of destruction — choosing attrition over summary execution.

During the campaign, Obama said that if vouchers worked he would support them. The Education Department recently revealed that students who joined the voucher program in 2004 are now more than two school years ahead of their public school peers in reading.

In his initial budget, Obama declared that when it comes to education, we cannot waste dollars on programs that are inefficient. Average tuition at the voucher schools is $6,620, while the District is spending $26,555 per pupil this year on K-12 education.

So contrary to his promises, the president has sacrificed a program he knows to be efficient and successful in order to appease the public school employee unions. If he will do this for the NEA, he will do anything.

America finally has an “education president,” and his name is Dennis Van Roekel (current President of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association).

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

Dumas: Bush Tax Cuts Hurt Economy

December 17, 2010 – 12:06 am
(Representative Todd Akin of St Louis talks about 2003 Bush Tax Cut and Obama’s recent tax compromise)
HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth
This morning when I got up the news was reporting that “A massive bipartisan tax package preventing a big New Year’s Day tax hike for millions of Americans is on its way to President Barack Obama for his signature.” Evidently, in order to get some things that the Democrats wanted, they had to allow the Republicans to keep the rates down on the top tax bracket. I think that is good, but many liberals have a real problem with that, and many will contend that lowering the top rate in the past has never helped.
In his article “Tax work, not wealth,” ( Nov 25, Arkansas Times), Ernest Dumas asserts, “…the Bush tax cuts, which were to send the economy soaring and set off the greatest hiring rush in history. We know what happened. But what about specifically the capital gains cut of 2003, which was packaged with accelerated personal and corporate tax cuts and lowered the top capital gains rate to 15 percent? The economy continued to grow at a snail’s pace and then fell off the cliff.”
NOTICE TO LIBERALS: The facts show that the economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Like my last post, I am responding to these liberal assertions with a portion from an article published January 29, 2007 called, “Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts” by Brian Riedl. Riedl is the Grover Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation and Riedl’s budget research has been featured in front-page stories and editorials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened:
  • GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
  • Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
    The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.
The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Taxes | Comments (2)

Mark Pryor supported Failed Stimulus

December 15, 2010 – 1:07 pm

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

(Paul Ryan outlines what has happened since the stimulus has been passed)

Will Rogers has a great quote that I love. He noted, “Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago”(Paula McSpadden Love, The Will Rogers Book, (1972) p. 20.)

Senator Mark Pryor voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which was signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. Both Pryor and Obama thought the economy could be jump started by more government spending. On January 10, 2009 President Obama claimed that the Stimulus would bring unemployment under 8% and create 4.1 million jobs.

NOTICE TO LIBERALS: Did the economy get stimulated by the Stimulus Bill? The verdict came in with the unemployment figures. Unemployment had gone from 8.1% (Feb 2009) to 9.8% (Nov 2010). The stimulus had failed just like every other stimulus that had ever been attempted by any government anywhere.

It is my view that the stimulus bill did nothing to stimulate the economy. Also how can President Obama claim that economists on “the right” approve of the stimulus when not one Republican voted for it? In 2009 The Cato Institute ran an ad in leading newspapers through out the country that seems to contradict this very claim and had it signed by 300 leading economists (several Nobel Prize Winners included) : “Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”
Now that the Democrats have lost their large majorities we have an opportunity  to duplicate the same political environment that existed the last three years of the Clinton presidency when we actually had three balanced budgets in his last three years (surplus of 69 billion in 98, 76 billion in 99, 46 billion in 2000). The Tea Party Republicans should help in that regard too.  Futhermore, President Obama faces real problems with China who is balking at buying up American currency and Treasury bonds at the pace it takes to sustain the current deficit of 1.35 trillion.
Deep down President Obama really does believe that more government is the answer. Back in 1980 I read a book called FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and in it he said, “We’ve become increasing dependent on government. We’ve surrendered power to government, nobody has taken it from us. It’s our doing. The results, monumental government spending. Much of it wasted, little of it going to the people whom we would like to see helped. Burdensome taxes, high inflation, a welfare system under which neither those who receive help nor those who pay for it are satisfied. Trying to do good with other people’s money simply has not worked.” (The Free to Choose Film Series can be viewed at http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/ ).

I believe in returning social programs to private charities and churches where they would be privately funded. We can longer afford to allow government to interfere in our lives. Just imagine the expansion of private business and investment that will occur when our taxes are reduced dramatically because over half of our budget expenditures have been eliminated.

Politicians like Mark Pryor and President Obama need to realize that only jobs created by the private sector will stimulate the economy, and taking resources out of the private economy and putting them into temporary government jobs will only cause the debt to go up along with eventually our interest rates and inflation. Milton Friedman said it best: “There is no free lunch!!!”

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