Category Archives: Taxes

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12)

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.

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

People say the government has a debt problem. Debt is caused by deficits, which is the difference between what the government collects in tax revenue and the amount of government spending. Every time the government runs a deficit, the government debt increases. So what’s to blame: too much spending, or too little tax revenue? Economics professor Antony Davies examines the data and concludes that the root cause of the debt is too much government spending.

Rep Todd Rokita of Indiana noted on facebook:

Another on-point column by John Stossel. “It’s the spending, stupid” sums up the adult conversation Hoosiers are having about government spending and the true drivers of our debt.

“People will have to see the wisdom of giving up government benefits now — in exchange for something more abstract: a future free society in which our children won’t be burdened by debt and taxes.”

It’s the Spending, Stupid!

By John Stossel – December 19, 2012

Listening to progressive media pundits, I’d think the most evil man in the universe is Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. His crime? He heads a movement that asks political candidates to pledge not to raise taxes.

I think Grover accomplished a lot. But I wish he’d convinced politicians to pledge not to increase spending.

President Obama says raising taxes to cut the deficit is a “balanced” approach.

Balanced …

But what’s “balanced” about raising taxes after vast increases in spending? Trillions for war, Medicare, “stimulus” and solar panels. Tax receipts rose — after tax-rate cuts — from $1.9 billion in 2003 to $2.3 billion in 2008, the year the recession started. That increase couldn’t keep up with the spending. The deficit doubled — actually, more than doubled — as politicians increased spending to nearly $4 trillion! Our debt, at more than $16 trillion, now exceeds our gross domestic product.

Ludicrous, irresponsible spending is why we’re in trouble. As columnist Ron Hart points out, Bill Clinton’s balanced budget spent $1.7 trillion. “Adjusted for inflation,” he writes, “our federal government would (have) a $200 billion surplus. But instead of increasing government spending in line with normal inflation, under Bush and Obama we are spending $3.8 trillion today. Democrats, who believe we have a ‘revenue’ problem instead of a ‘spending’ problem, must also think they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem.”

The media obsess about tax rates, but spending is more important. As Milton Friedman taught us, spending is a far more accurate gauge of the government burden. If government spends a dollar, that dollar is taxed away from someone. If it’s borrowed, it’s removed from productive use, setting the stage for higher taxes later. If the government prints more dollars to fund spending, our purchasing power falls. Transferring purchasing power from the people to the government via inflation is a form of taxation.

If Republicans and Democrats reach a deal, the tax increases will be real — but spending “cuts” probably illusions. If they actually happen, they will only be reductions in already planned increases. The Wall Street Journal notes that when the two parties talk about cutting spending by $4 trillion over a decade, “those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill’s ‘baseline’ has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections … . Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline.”

Given our growing debt, can’t they even slow the growth of government to the rate of inflation? Or inflation plus 1 percent? Or even inflation plus 2 percent? That might balance the budget within a decade.

But the spenders won’t even give me that. They want more. Always more.

Jonathan Bydlak, founder of the Coalition to Reduce Spending, has a good idea. “It’s important to do for spending what Norquist has done for taxes: create a means for voters to hold elected officials accountable when they break campaign promises of fiscal responsibility.”

Bydlak has no time for any politician who pledges not to raise taxes without pledging to cut spending. He praises Doug Collins, representative-elect from Georgia, and Ted Cruz, senator-elect from Texas, for signing the Reject the Debt pledge and thereby promising voters they would:

“ONE, not vote for any budget that is not balanced nor for any appropriations bill that increases total spending;

“and TWO, consider all spending open for reduction, and not vote to authorize or fund new programs without offsetting cuts in other programs.”

Well, sure. Good luck to him.

But people are reluctant to give up their favorite programs. Or any programs.

Let’s not fool ourselves about how dependent politicians have made people on government.

To succeed, the crusade to cut spending needs an ideological understanding of how unsustainable our current course is, not just a narrow appeal to short-term self-interest. People will have to see the wisdom of giving up government benefits now — in exchange for something more abstract: a future free society in which our children won’t be burdened by debt and taxes. 

 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

________

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c32382-1.jpg

President Reagan and Bob Hope laughing with George Shultz at the Kennedy Center Honors. Washington, DC 12/8/85.

_________

President Ronald Reagan wisely said:

Milton Friedman points to four ways you can spend money. You can A) spend your own money on yourself, B) spend your money on someone else, C) spend someone else’s money on yourself, and D) spend someone else’s money on someone else. The order of efficiency is A, B, C and D. Watch this clip for Friedman’s explanation:

We have too much of C and D and we need more of A and B.

___________

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

Sincerely,

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

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) 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 […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

 (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Can you blame the rich for moving when you raise taxes up too high? Milton Friedman weighes in!!!

December 21, 2012 – 1:37 am

Will Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit?

Published on Jul 2, 2012

The government’s budget deficit in 2009 was $1.5 trillion. Many have suggested raising taxes on the rich to cover the difference between what the government collected in revenue and what it spent. Is that a realistic solution? Economics professor Antony Davies uses data to demonstrate why taxing the rich will not be sufficient to make the budget deficit disappear. He says, “The budget deficit is so large that there simply aren’t enough rich people to tax to raise enough to balance the budget.” Instead, it’s time to work on legitimate solutions, like cutting spending.

___________

Can you blame the rich for moving when you raise taxes up too high? Milton Friedman rightly noted that people will seek their own self interest. He asked, “Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?” The obvious answer is no. Take a look at this exchange between Friedman and Phil Donahue and then look at this article below that discusses what is going on now in France. No wonder that people are fleeing California for Texas too.

Phil Donohue: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism? And whether greed is a good idea to run on?

Milton Friedman: Well first of all tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fella that’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The greatest achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kind of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

Phil Donohue: Seems to reward not virtue as much as the ability to manipulate the system.

Milton Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the Communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think… American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know I think you are taking a lot of things for granted. And just tell me where in the world you find these angels that are going to organize society for us? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that.

Atlas is shrugging and Dan Mitchell is laughing.

I predicted back in May that well-to-do French taxpayers weren’t fools who would meekly sit still while the hyenas in the political class confiscated ever-larger shares of their income.

But the new President of France, Francois Hollande, doesn’t seem overly concerned by economic rationality and decided (Obama must be quite envious) that a top tax rate of 75 percent is fair.” And patriotic as well!

French Prime Minister: “I’m upset that the wildebeest aren’t remaining still for their disembowelment.”

So I was pleased – but not surprised – when the news leaked out that France’s richest man was saying au revoir and moving to Belgium.

But he’s not the only one. The nation’s top actor also decided that he doesn’t want to be a fatted calf. Indeed, it appears that there are entire communities of French tax exiles living just across the border in Belgium.

Best of all, the greedy politicians are throwing temper tantrums that the geese have found a better place for their golden eggs.

France’s Prime Minister seems particularly agitated about this real-world evidence for the Laffer Curve. Here are some excerpts from a story in the UK-based Telegraph.

“No fair!”

France’s prime minister has slammed wealthy citizens fleeing the country’s punitive tax on high incomes as greedy profiteers seeking to “become even richer”. Jean-Marc Ayrault’s outburst came after France’s best-known actor, Gerard Dépardieu, took up legal residence in a small village just over the border in Belgium, alongside hundreds of other wealthy French nationals seeking lower taxes. “Those who are seeking exile abroad are not those who are scared of becoming poor,” the prime minister declared after unveiling sweeping anti-poverty measures to help those hit by the economic crisis. These individuals are leaving “because they want to get even richer,” he said. “We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity,” he added.

In the interests of accuracy, let’s re-write Monsieur Ayrault’s final quote from the excerpt. What he’s really saying is: “We cannot buy votes and create dependency if those that produce, and sometimes produce a lot, do not act like morons and let us rape and pillage without consequence.”

So what’s going to happen? Well, I wrote in September that France was going to suffer a fiscal crisis, and I followed up in October with a post explaining how a bloated welfare state was a form of economic suicide.

Yet French politicians don’t seem to care. They don’t seem to realize that a high burden of government spending causes economic weakness by misallocating labor and capital. They seem oblivious  to basic tax policy matters, even though there is plenty of evidence that the Laffer Curve works even in France.

So as France gets ever-closer to fiscal collapse, part of me gets a bit of perverse pleasure from the news. Not because of dislike for the French. The people actually are very nice, in my experience, and France is a very pleasant place to visit. And it was even listed as the best place in the world to live, according to one ranking.

But it helps to have bad examples. And just as I’ve used Greece to help educate American lawmakers about the dangers of statism, I’ll also use France as an example of what not to do.

P.S. France actually is much better than the United States in that rich people actually are free to move across the border without getting shaken down with exit taxes that are reminiscent of totalitarian regimes.

P.P.S. This Chuck Asay cartoon seems to capture the mentality of the French government.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Milton Friedman, President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (2)

Liberal plan will not work but just load more debt on our children

December 21, 2012 – 1:21 am

Funding Government by the Minute

Published on Mar 28, 2012

At the rate the federal government spends, it runs out of money on July 31. What programs should be cut to balance the budget and fund the government for the remaining five months of the year? Cutting NASA might buy two days; cutting the Navy could buy fifteen. It seems that balancing the budget may require more than just cutting government programs. What should be done?

The Debt Limit: Made Simple

We got some big problems we got to take care of in this country. Will the liberal plan make things run smooth in the USA? There is no way that is going to happen. We got to take conservative principles and put them into practice in order to grow the economy. Instead, the liberal plan just loads more debt on our children.

Liberal Welfare State in Decline

Rich Tucker

December 10, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Even as the country deals with the crisis of the “fiscal cliff,” there’s another crisis waiting in the wings. “The second act will occur early in 2013 when the federal government will exhaust its ability to issue debt legally,” writes Heritage’s J. D. Foster.

As computer programmers would say, the seemingly endless series of crises isn’t a bug; it’s a feature, a fundamental debate over the future of the country.

With Obamacare in place, the left has finished building its dream: a liberal welfare state. Yet that dream seems likely to turn into a nightmare. Without massive tax increases on the middle class, the welfare state is simply not affordable. “The foundation is falling out from beneath the building just as they have finished construction,” quips Yuval Levin.

That’s why Charles Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books, remains upbeat that the future of the country is conservative.

In a Heritage First Principles essay published before the 2012 election, he wrote:

If the bankruptcy of the entitlement programs were handled just the right way, with world-class cynicism and opportunism, in an emergency demanding quick, painful action lest Grandma descend into an irreversible diabetic coma, then liberalism might succeed in maneuvering America into a Scandinavia-style überwelfare state, fueled by massive and regressive taxes cheerfully accepted by the citizenry.

But all that remains unlikely:

Odds are we stand instead at the twilight of the liberal welfare state. As it sinks, a new, more conservative system will likely rise that will feature some combination of more means-testing of benefits, a switch from defined-benefit to defined-contribution programs, greater devolution of authority to the states and localities, a new budget process that will force welfare expenditures to compete with other national priorities, and the redefinition of the welfare function away from fulfilling socioeconomic “rights” and toward charitably taking care of the truly needy as best the community can afford when private efforts have failed or proved inadequate.

His optimism about the future explains why Kesler’s book I Am the Change is subtitled Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism.

Despite the election results, it’s the left that faces an existential crisis. Conservatives, meanwhile, have detailed plans that can transform entitlement programs, reduce federal spending and debt, and hold the line on taxes. That’s worth remembering—no matter how the fiscal cliff talks end up.

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200) Rep Womack of Arkansas shares link “Spending is the problem”

December 20, 2012 – 3:37 pm

 

Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be his vice president was Reagan’s biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. I HOPE THE REPUBLICANS DON’T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THAT BUSH DID!!!Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman:

Milton Friedman Honored for Lifetime Achievements 2002/5/9

Milton Friedman had a big influence on Ronald Reagan and what did Reagan do when he found the economy sluggish? He cut taxes!!! What does President Obama do? He wants to raise taxes!!

(This letter was emailed to White House on 12-20-12.)

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.

Fiscal Cliff Common Ground

Published on Dec 17, 2012

Senator Boozman discusses the common ground in fiscal cliff negotations.

______________

Rep Womack of Arkansas shared a link on facebook for a story that was posted on the Speaker of the House Boehner’s website. I wish the Speaker would follow his own advice!!!!

Posted by Don Seymour
December 13, 2012
General
 

In the debate over avoiding the “fiscal cliff,” an important point has been forgotten: when it comes to solving our debt, government spending is the problem that must be addressed.

Republicans have offered a balanced, pro-growth solution that would avert the fiscal cliff by making needed spending cuts and reforming our tax code in ways the president previously supported. This kind of plan – backed by a majority of the American people in survey after survey – would help address our debt and pave the way for long-term job growth.

President Obama and Democrats, on the other hand, want to punish small businesses with higher tax rates while increasing spending. The president has demanded as much as four times in tax hikes versus spending cuts, which are dwarfed by new ‘stimulus.’ This isn’t balanced. And it won’t do any good.

The chart above – prepared by Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the House Budget Committee – shows what happens to projected levels of tax revenue (green) if President Obama’s tax increases kick in (blue), and compares that with recent and projected spending trajectory (red). As you can see, if the president gets his tax hikes, we still face a mountain of spending-driven debt.

Even Democrats like Erskine Bowles admit, “We have to cut spending.” As said on CBS Face the Nation, “Even if you raise the top rates back to the Clinton rates, that only creates about $400 billion over 10 years. That’s $40 billion a year. We have a trillion dollar a year deficit.”

Spending is the problem. Republicans want to make needed spending cuts; Democrats are silent. And that’s why there’s still no agreement on averting the fiscal cliff.

________

_____________

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

Sincerely,

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

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) 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 […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

 (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

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

France going to collapse?

December 20, 2012 – 3:15 pm

Dan Mitchell Discussing Fake Austerity in Europe on Fox Business

Published on May 9, 2012 by

No description available.

_________________

I think Dan Mitchell is right about France heading the wrong direction.

I’m a bad person. I know it’s not nice to take joy in the misery of others, but I can’t help but smile when I see a story about bad news in France.

In my defense, this is not because of hostility to French people, who have always been friendly to me. Instead, France has become the global symbol of statism (particularly since Sweden has been moving in the right direction). The French, for instance, are increasingly infamous for class-warfare tax policy and onerous levels of intervention.

And since it’s my job to promote liberty, I’ll confess that it’s easier for me to convince non-French policy makers that free markets and small government are the right approach when there’s more evidence that statism is failing in France.

So why am I smiling? Well, France wasn’t doing so well under the de facto socialist Nicolas Sarkozy, and it seems that things are looking even worse now that the de jure socialist Francois Hollande is in charge.

Here’s some of what Reuters recently reported.

“It’s always time for a tax hike!”

The French are bleaker about their country’s future than at any time since 2005, a new poll showed on Saturday, with 68 percent saying they are “rather” or “very” pessimistic… Hollande’s government has been reeling from unemployment at a 13-year high and a rash of job cuts in recent weeks at top employers like carmaker Peugeot and retailer Carrefour. The government launched a plan this week to create 150,000 state-sponsored jobs for youth. Only 34 percent of those surveyed were confident in the government’s ability to battle unemployment, and just 20 percent expect the government to be able to improve their buying power. …The poll found that the pessimism extended even to 58 percent of Socialist party supporters.

I’m wondering when the pessimism will spread to investors. France recently lost its triple-A credit rating, but the rating agencies don’t do a good job, so I think it’s much more important to look at the prices of credit default swaps.

In other words, how much does it cost for an investor to insure debt from the French government? According to this CNBC site, France isn’t viewed as being as creditworthy as nations such as Switzerland, Germany, and the United States, but it is closer to those countries than it is to Spain, Italy, or Portugal.

This is just a guess on my part, but I think France is reaching the point where investors are suddenly going to get concerned about the government’s ability to fulfill its promises.

If Hollande follows through on his threat to impose a “patriotic” 75-percent tax rate, for example, that could be the trigger that makes the bond market a lot more skittish. Particularly since it will result in fewer rich people in France.

I’ve already written about French entrepreneurs and investors leaving the country because of Hollande’s class-warfare tax agenda. It’s gotten so bad that even Hollywood types are packing their bags.

Actor Johnny Depp has moved out of France and returned to America because he didn’t want to become a permanent French resident and pay income tax there. …Depp has now moved his family out of France after government officials asked him to become a permanent resident, as he feared he would end up paying tax in both countries. He tells Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, “…France wanted a piece of me. They wanted me to become a permanent resident. Permanent residency status – which changes everything. They just want… Dough. Money… ” Depp goes on to explain that if he spends more than 183 days a year in France he will have to pay income tax in both Europe and America, adding, “So you essentially work for free.”

Wow, complaining that he doesn’t want to “work for free.” What is he, some sort of radical libertarian from the Tea Party?

But he may want to chat with fellow tax-averse actor Jon Lovitz before moving back to America. Obama’s class-warfare agenda isn’t as bad as what Hollande is trying to impose, but it’s not Hong Kong or the Cayman Islands either.

P.S. Here’s a very good Chuck Asay cartoon about the French economy.

P.P.S. In a few areas, France has better policy than the United States.

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

 

The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes?

_______________

Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax

Published on May 11, 2012 by

In this 1968 interview, Milton Friedman explained the negative income tax, a proposal that at minimum would save taxpayers the 72 percent of our current welfare budget spent on administration. http://www.LibertyPen.com

Source: Firing Line with William F Buckley Jr.

________________

Milton Friedman describes the welfare state’s effect on private charitable activity

Uploaded by on Oct 12, 2009

From “Free to Choose” (1980), Part IV: “From Cradle to Grave.”

(This letter was emailed to White House on 12-20-12.)

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.

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

People say the government has a debt problem. Debt is caused by deficits, which is the difference between what the government collects in tax revenue and the amount of government spending. Every time the government runs a deficit, the government debt increases. So what’s to blame: too much spending, or too little tax revenue? Economics professor Antony Davies examines the data and concludes that the root cause of the debt is too much government spending.

____________

Marlin Stutzman represents Indiana’s 3rd District in the U.S. House of Representatives and I have written about him several times before. The Cato Institute has given him a 99% rating on keeping his promises about cutting spending. Here is his article on the “Fiscal Cliff” for The Journal Gazette

Published: December 16, 2012 3:00 a.m.

New approach beckons for the new year …

Marlin Stutzman

As Hoosiers look forward to spending the upcoming holidays with family and friends, Washington is on the cusp of its latest fiscal crisis, and the menace of tax hikes on Jan. 1 is casting a shadow over what should be a joyful season. Unfortunately, this scene is all too familiar to the American people.

Despite numerous opportunities, Congress and the White House refuse to come to grips with out-of-control spending and offer long-term solutions to solve the federal government’s $16 trillion debt crisis.

Hoosiers have every right to be frustrated and discouraged with Washington, D.C., as the country heads toward bankruptcy, our nation’s broken entitlement programs teeter on the verge of insolvency, and looming tax hikes threaten thousands of Hoosier jobs.

The facts are alarming. Washington borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends, Medicare’s own trustees have calculated that the program will reach insolvency in just 12 short years, and President Obama’s tax proposals jeopardize more than 15,000 jobs here in Indiana.

Despite his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, Obama increased the national debt by more than $4 trillion. In just four years, this administration has stacked up more debt than every president from George Washington to Bill Clinton combined. A child born today inherits a $52,000 share of Uncle Sam’s borrowed spending. Meanwhile, their grandparents are left with the empty promises of a broken entitlement system.

Each day, 10,000 baby boomers reach retirement age and Medicare’s worker-to-beneficiary ratio grows weaker. In 2000, four current workers supported each beneficiary, but that number is on pace to fall below three. As that number declines, health care costs continue to climb. Nearly one in three primary care doctors is limiting the number of Medicare patients they see, and that number will only grow as Obamacare continues to be implemented. That’s unacceptable to the millions of seniors who were promised that the program would be there in their retirement.

Although Hoosiers understand that our economic crisis is, at heart, a debt crisis, Obama has focused nearly exclusively on tax hikes to fuel more deficit spending. Hoosiers know Washington can’t tax its way out of a spending mess. Under the most optimistic projections, Obama’s taxes will only cover eight days of government spending.

Despite these facts, the focus of the current fiscal cliff talks seems to remain on taxes, and when politicians focus on taxes instead of cuts and reforms, they leave middle class families out to dry. If we’re serious about fixing these fundamental problems, we have to rein in Washington’s runaway spending, give permanent tax certainty, and do the tough work of entitlement reform.

We need immediately to cut spending, responsibly cap future expenditures and put our nation’s finances on a path toward healthy balance. The House-passed budget, The Path to Prosperity, would have reduced the fiscal year 2013 deficit to less than $800 billion and put us on a path to paying off the debt.

Instead of threatening families and small businesses with the constant threat of higher taxes, we need to give certainty by extending the current tax rates for all Americans. In August, House Republicans and some Democrats voted to prevent these looming tax hikes, setting the stage for real tax reform in the year to come. The Senate should pass that extension without delay.

In addition, we must save Medicare while there’s still time. House Republicans have shown that we can reform Medicare for future generations without making any changes for current seniors. By expanding opportunity and empowering patients, younger workers can choose plans that meet their individual needs. We offer multiple guaranteed coverage options and, if it meets their unique needs, patients can choose the traditional Medicare plan.

In Indiana, we know that problems are only solved with honesty and hard work. Washington has an opportunity to tackle these challenges. This is difficult work, but no one was sent to Washington to make easy decisions.

As the new year approaches, there’s no better time to break Washington’s old habits and fix what’s broken.

Marlin Stutzman, a Republican, represents Indiana’s 3rd District in the U.S. House of Representatives. He wrote this for The Journal Gazette.
_____________

_____________

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Why does the “Lucy move the football” reference apply to Republicans on the fiscal cliff?

December 20, 2012 – 7:04 am

I truly do wonder how smart our elected representatives are in Washington. I got up on 12-20-12 and read this article below from the Heritage Foundation with the reference to Charlie Brown getting fooled by Lucy again when he runs up and tries  to kick the football and of course she moves it again.

Liberals in Congress have always tried to fool conservatives by promising future cuts if they provide higher taxes now. (This article below appeared on www.heritage.org on 12-20-12.)

Obama’s “Lucy Move the Football” Fiscal Cliff Plan Still Not Balanced

Alison Acosta Fraser

December 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm

Volleys of negotiating counter-offers are coming in faster now that Christmas break and the looming fiscal cliff are just around the corner.

While there is much unsatisfactory with Speaker of the House John Boehner’s (R–OH) Sunday night proposal, let us not forget that the reason we are watching this needless, high stakes drama unfold is due to President Obama’s intractable insistence on tax increases on America’s high earners. After all, he and Congress could simply and quickly pass a bill to extend all current policies and avoid the fiscal cliff entirely—if he wanted to. No, this is really about hiking taxes on high earners. Thus the charade of deficit reduction continues.

Obama’s latest counteroffer is no more acceptable than his first offer. Short on details concerning actual spending reductions, especially on entitlements, it is replete with his requisite tax hikes and (we are shocked) new stimulus spending. The cherry on top is an extension of the debt limit for two years, essentially handing over authority to raise it to the President.

Right.

The President originally called for around $800 billion in tax hikes on America’s “highest” earners—those earning $250,000 and up. A ridiculous demand when the economy is still struggling under his big spending and regulatory policies, and one which would squarely hit smaller businesses. You know, the ones who actually create jobs.

Yet, just like Lucy and the football, when Boehner and company offered up $800 billion in tax hikes, Obama quickly doubled his demand to $1.5 trillion in tax hikes—again, all from the highest earners. They, he tells us, can afford to pay a little more. Never mind, of course, that the top 1 percent of earners already pay 37 percent of all income taxes. Somehow we are to believe this is a “balanced approach.”

Obama pitches all this on the pretext that we can simply go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton. Wrong! His dirty little tax secret is that he has already hiked taxes on high earners under Obamacare. First the law added a surtax of 0.9 percent in addition to the Medicare payroll tax on those earning over $250,000. For the first time ever, Obamacare will apply this higher rate of 3.8 percent to investment income on January 1. Obama won’t tell you that going back to Clinton-era tax rates will actually result in higher taxes on wages, dividends, and capital gains.

They say if you want less of something, then tax it. For Obama, this works fine on financial transactions, carbon emissions, driving, and junk food. But evidently, for him, not so much on a strong vibrant economy. And those Clinton boom years? They weren’t ushered in after the Clinton tax hike—only after the Clinton–Gingrich tax cut!

Rather than working with Republicans on tax proposals that will actually grow the economy, Obama is now simply fighting over his definition of “high income” while we are left to wonder how much this $1.2 trillion tax hike will slow the economy.

As for the $1.2 trillion spending reductions, the only reason they are there is because Boehner insisted on them. But $100 billion in cuts would whack the defense budget, which is already reeling from earlier budget cuts. Yet the real spending and debt crisis comes from unaffordable entitlement programs. While Obama is insisting on balance on the tax side, he is sorely lacking in leadership here. As a recent Washington Post editorial opined:

Elections do have consequences, and Mr. Obama ran on a clear platform of increasing taxes on the wealthy. But he was clear on something else, too: Deficit reduction must be “balanced,” including spending cuts as well as tax increases. Since 60 percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there’s no way to achieve balance without slowing the rate of increase of those programs.

We know Obama is open to changing the inflation calculation and slowing the benefit growth in Social Security. But what else? What about the proposals in his own budget, which would increase premiums on Medicare? He could easily broaden his proposals with additional uncontroversial steps to begin the process of strengthening and reining in Social Security and Medicare. All he needs to do is lead.

Some polls may show that Americans think taxes should be part of a deficit deal; but what the polls do not always show is their utter distrust that Washington would use new revenues to actually reduce the deficit. Here, Obama does not let them down. He reportedly wants $80 billion in new spending on infrastructure and unemployment benefits.

In exchange for all of this, he wants to raise the debt limit by enough to fuel his big spending goals for two years. This is utterly unacceptable. Americans know you cannot reduce the deficit when you plan to actually spend more. Americans also know that when Washington lifts the debt limit, it will not control spending. The debt limit puts the very pressure lawmakers need to account for out-of-control spending and make vital course corrections to bring spending under control, lest we face a Euro-style debt crisis in the future.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is actually insisting that “[t]he President’s proposal is the only proposal we have seen that achieves the balance that is so necessary.” Balance, evidently, is in the eyes of the beholder. As the Post noted, 60 percent of the budget stems from entitlements.

In just 13 short years—by the time today’s kindergarteners enter college—entitlements and interest on the debt will eat up all tax revenues. A truly balanced approach must start where the problem starts—with substantive reforms to entitlements. While the President maintains that you cannot cut your way to prosperity, you certainly cannot tax your way there.

_______________

Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman:

Milton Friedman Honored for Lifetime Achievements 2002/5/9

Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be his vice president was his biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. I wonder if Jeb Bush has the same genes as his father.

What we need is some people in Washington that are brave enough to say that we have taken too much of the american people’s money and we have to make the painful spending cuts in order to balance the budget and not ask for any more tax increases!!!! Arkansas’ congressman Rick Crawford has also made the Charlie Brown mistake but he has backed off it since.

Even though America’s fiscal problem is entirely the result of too much government spending, I wrote earlier this year that there were all sorts of scenarios where I would agree to a tax increase.

But I then pointed out that all of those scenarios were total fantasies and that it would be more realistic to envision me playing center field for the New York Yankees.

The fundamental problem is that politicians never follow through on promises to reduce spending – even if you use the dishonest Washington definition that a spending cut occurs whenever the budget doesn’t rise as fast as previously planned.

And to make matters worse, they always seem to want class-warfare tax hikes that do heavy economic damage rather than the loophole closers that at least get rid of some of the inefficient corruption in the tax code.

That’s why I like the anti-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. You don’t solve America’s fiscal problems by saying no to all tax increases, but at least you don’t move in the wrong direction at a faster rate.

Notwithstanding the principled and pragmatic arguments against putting tax increases on the table, some Republicans – in a triumph of hope over experience – are preemptively acquiescing to tax hikes.

Here’s what Jeb Bush said.

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, said Friday that he could back a broad deficit plan that increased taxes, a stance that puts him at odds with other prominent Republicans. Bush told a House panel he could get behind a plan that combined 10 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of new revenue… “The problem is the 10 never materializes,” [Congressman Paul] Ryan said after Bush said he could support a revenue-increasing deficit deal. Norquist also has criticized deficit deals crafted in 1982 and 1990 – the latter agreed to by then-President George H.W. Bush, Jeb’s father – for failing to deliver on the spending side.

Kudos to Paul Ryan for making the obvious point about make-believe spending cuts. And Grover is correct about the failure of previous budget deals.

Indeed, I cited a New York Times column that inadvertently revealed that the only budget deal that worked was the 1997 pact that cut taxes rather than raised them.

Jeb Bush isn’t the only apostate. Here’s what Senator Graham had to say.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday he believed Republicans should consider eliminating loopholes in the tax code even if they aren’t replaced by additional tax cuts, a move that would break with an anti-tax pledge many GOP lawmakers have signed with activist Grover Norquist. “When you eliminate a deduction, it’s OK with me to use some of that money to get us out of debt. That’s where I disagree with the pledge,” Graham told ABC News. …”I’m willing to move my party, or try to, on the tax issue. I need someone on the Democratic side being willing to move their party on structural changes to entitlements.” Graham said, for instance, he would support a plan that included $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. During a Republican debate last August, all eight Republican candidates in attendance said they would reject a proposal to trade $10 in spending cuts for even $1 in tax increases.

In some sense, Senator Graham’s comments are reasonable. With real spending cuts and less-damaging forms of tax hikes, an acceptable deal is possible. But only in Fantasia, not in Washington.

In the real world, all that Senator Graham has done is to move the debate slightly to the left.

I’ve noted that tax increases are political poison for the Republican Party, but I don’t lose sleep worrying about the GOP.

But I do have nightmares about government getting even bigger, and that’s why I don’t want tax increases on the table. I don’t even want them in the room. Or the house. Or the neighborhood.

That’s why Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham are the newest winners of the Charlie Brown Award. They’ve put blood in the water. I wonder if they’ll act surprised when hungry sharks show up looking for a meal?

_____________

In 1982 the Democrats promised future spending cuts if Ronald Reagan would agree to a tax increase, but you guessed it, the taxes were increased and the spending cuts never came. THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT THAT WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TAXES BUT WE DON’T WANT TO CUT SPENDING!!!

Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict

Concerning spending cuts Reagan believed, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.” However, can you believe a drug addict when he tells you he is not ever going to do his habit again? Congress is addicted to spending too much money.  Lee Edwards wrote in his article “Golden Years” about Ronald Reagan:

Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 — $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.

Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good “70 percent” deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as “the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration,” although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]

The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.”[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to “trust but verify,” whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.

_________

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) 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 […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

 (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Milton Friedman, President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman supported Balanced Budget Amendment

December 20, 2012 – 1:32 am

Remarks at a Rally Supporting the Proposed Constitutional Amendment for a Balanced Federal Budget

For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan’s Foundation, please visit http://www.reaganfoundation.org

_______________

Ronald Reagan was a firm believer in the Balanced Budget Amendment and Milton Friedman was a key advisor to Reagan. Friedman’s 1980 film series taught the lesson of restraining growth of the federal budget.

 

UHLER: A better balanced budget amendment

Vital changes needed to keep road to further reforms open

There is a problem brewing in the House of Representatives of which most conservatives in and outside Congress are largely unaware. It has to do with H.J. Res. 1 – the balanced budget amendment – soon to be voted on per the debt-ceiling “deal” struck by Congress and the president. While H.J. Res. 1 is a solid first effort – and we have urged support for it as a symbolic vote – it is possibly fatally flawed and should be revised.

After years of indifference to constitutional fiscal discipline, Congress is once again stirring. In 1982, then-President Ronald Reagan, convened a federal amendment drafting committee led by Milton Friedman, Jim Buchanan, Bill Niskanen, Walter Williams and many others, and fashioned Senate Joint Resolution 58, a tax limitation-balanced budget amendment, which garnered 67 votes in the Senate under the able leadership of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican. After a successful discharge petition forced a House vote, the amendment failed to achieve the two-thirds vote necessary in a Tip O’Neill-Jim Wright-controlled House. In 1996, Newt Gingrich and company came within one vote of passing a fiscal amendment in the House.

Currently, H.J. Res. 1 is designed as a classic balanced budget amendment in which outlays can be as great as, but no more than, receipts for that year. However, it requires an estimate of receipts, which is notoriously faulty, and it does not necessarily produce surpluses with which to pay down our massive debt. Furthermore, it contains a second limit on outlays – “not more than 18 percent of the economic output of the United States” – without defining such output or resolving the inevitable conflict between the outlay calculations in the two provisions.

This could be fixed by restructuring the amendment as a spending or outlay limit based on prior year receipts or outlays (known numbers), adjusted only for inflation and population changes. This will produce surpluses in most years with which to pay down debts and will reduce government spending as a share of gross domestic product over time, right-sizing government and increasing the rate of economic growth for the benefit of all citizens, especially those least able to compete.

Section 4 of H.J. Res. 1 might best be described as a supreme example of the law of unintended consequences. This section imposes on the president a constitutional responsibility to present a balanced budget. Surely, the drafters were saying to themselves “We’ll fix that guy in the White House. Now he will have to fess up and either propose specific tax increases or specific spending cuts. He won’t be able to duck reality any longer.” The only problem is that this section is at odds with our Constitution in that it gives the president a constitutional power over fiscal matters never intended by the Founders.

For much of our history, the president did not propose a budget. In the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which established the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget and the General Accounting Office, the president was statutorily authorized to propose a budget. Presidents have always shaped the budget and spending using their negotiating opportunities and veto pen. Wearing their chief administrator hat, earlier presidents sought to save money from the amounts appropriated by Congress, getting things done for less, impounding funds they did not think essential to spend. Congress‘ ceiling on an appropriation was not also the spending floor for the president, as it is now.

Section 4 appears to give the president co-equal power with Congress not only to present a budget but to shape it, in conflict with congressional budget authority. At a minimum, it is likely to create a conflict over the amount of allowed annual spending. The president surely will be guided by his own Office of Management and Budget, whose budget and receipts calculations will undoubtedly differ from the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers that will direct Congress. We should not start the budget process each year with this kind of conflict.

It would be better to restore the historic role of the president to impound and otherwise reduce expenditures by repealing and revising appropriate portions of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 so a fiscally conservative president is a revitalized partner in cutting the size of government.

Section 5 requires a supermajority vote for “a bill to increase revenues.” Whether one agrees or disagrees with making tax increases more difficult, this language is troublesome because it requires some government bureaucrat or bureaucracy to make a calculation or estimate of the effect of tax law changes on revenues. Proponents of a bill to increase cash flow to the government will argue that their tax law changes are “revenue neutral” and will likely persuade the Joint Committee on Taxation or Congressional Budget Office to back them up. Once again, estimators would be in control.

If we ever expect to convert our income-based tax system to a consumption tax, better not to require a two-thirds vote as liberals will use such a supermajority voting rule to stymie tax system reform.

There are other issues, as well, with debt limit and national emergency supermajority votes and definitions. While this balanced budget amendment – H.J. Res. 1 – has deserved a “yes” vote as a demonstration of commitment to constitutional fiscal discipline, it can and must be revised before the showdown vote in the House this fall.

Lewis K. Uhler is president of the National Tax Limitation Committee.

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

Open letter to Congressman Womack: Total Welfare Spending Is Rising Despite Attempts at Reform

December 19, 2012 – 7:07 am

 

December 19, 2012

The Honorable Steve Womack
United States House of Representatives
1508 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0403

Dear Congressman Womack,

This is the second time I have written to you about this. It is obvious to me that if President Obama gets his hands on more money then he will continue to spend away our children’s future. He has already taken the national debt from 11 trillion to 16 trillion in just 4 years. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over I have written Speaker Boehner and written every Republican that represents Arkansans in Arkansas before (Griffin, Womack, Crawford, and only Senator Boozman got a chance to respond) concerning this. I am hoping they will stand up against this reckless spending that our federal government has done and will continue to do if given the chance. (The Heritage Foundations says that Boehner is giving in to President Obama in this upcoming deal.)

I have written and emailed Senator Pryor over, and over again with spending cut suggestions but he has ignored all of these good ideas in favor of keeping the printing presses going as we plunge our future generations further in debt. I am convinced if he does not change his liberal voting record that he will no longer be our senator in 2014.

I have written hundreds of letters and emails to President Obama and I must say that I have been impressed that he has had the White House staff answer so many of my letters. However, his policies have not changed. He is committed to cutting nothing from the budget that I can tell.

Evidently the Republicans have proposed raising tax rates as a possible compromise to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. Let me make a few comments about that.

First, if raising the debt ceiling is part of this agreement then we are losing our leverage over President Obama. We have enough votes to block a debt ceiling increase. We want a balanced budget but if President Obama does not get a debt ceiling increase then he will have to balance the budget immediately.

Second, spending is our problem and it is not tax revenue. The problem in Washington is not lack of revenue but our lack of spending restraint. We almost had a balanced budget in 2007 and if we had frozen spending at 2007 levels then we would be close to a balanced budget now. Instead of controlling spending our spending has gone from 2.7 trillion to 3.8 trillion in just 5 short years!!!

Third, my blog has exploded the last few days with clicks on past posts I have done like the one below. Take a look at this post below and see why it is one of my most popular.

Fourth, I have included some wise words from a fellow Tea Party favorite like you below. Mo Brooks’ words are true now like they were in August of 2011 when he voted against the debt ceiling increase then.

Fifth, let me share these two videos with you that make very good points concerning this issue:

This video belows shows how silly the federal government is when they pass “spending cuts.”

The problem in Washington is not lack of revenue but our lack of spending restraint. This video below makes that point.

Please take the time to read Mo Brooks’ words and respond to me and tell me if you will vote against the debt ceiling increase. It is the only leverage we have on President Obama. Others have responded to me in the past and for that I am very grateful.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, cell ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com, www.thedailyhatch.org

Total Welfare Spending Is Rising Despite Attempts at Reform

Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.

Total means-tested welfare spending (cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services for the poor) has increased 17-fold since the beginning of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in 1964. Though the current trend is unsustainable, the Obama Administration plans to increase future welfare spending rather than enact true policy reforms.

WELFARE SPENDING IN INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010)

Receive Information on Federal Budget Data

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Zip Code
SUBMIT
Download

Total Welfare Spending Is Rising Despite Attempts at Reform

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on data from current and previous White House Office of Management and Budget documents and other official government sources.

Chart 10 of 42

In Depth

  • Policy Papers for Researchers

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

  • _________________
  • Here is another Tea Party hero you need to listen to:
    Rep. Brooks on Fox Business: BBA and the Debt Ceiling Vote

    Print

    Share

     

    Rep. Mo Brooks To Vote No On Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill

    08/01/11

    Washington, D.C. – Today Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) made the following statement concerning his vote on the Budget Control Act of 2011:

    Summary

    The Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill is bad for America, bad political process, bad for national defense, does not prevent unsustainable budget deficits, kicks the debt ceiling crises down the road to 2013 (when America will have more debt and less financial strength with which to fix the problem), and fails to satisfactorily decrease the risk of an American credit rating downgrade.

    Overview

    America must, and will, raise the debt ceiling.  The question is not whether Congress will raise the debt ceiling; the question is when and how.  Regardless of when the debt ceiling is raised, every bill and obligation of America to its citizens and creditors will be paid in full (albeit, with the exception of creditors, some payments may be delayed).

    I have voted to raise the debt ceiling provided the debt ceiling bill makes America’s financial condition better, not worse.

    I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 22, 2011, when I voted for the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan (cutting FY 2012 expenditures by a modest $111 billion in the context of a $1.5 trillion deficit; capping federal government expenditures within historically justifiable 18-20% ranges; and passing a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that protect future generations of Americans from revisiting the financial mess we face).

    I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 29, 2011, when I voted for the Boehner Plan (which included a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment requirement).

    I will not vote for the Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Bill (herein the “Debt Bill”) because it is not up to the financial challenges America faces. 

    Background:  The Problem

    Years of spending binges by the federal government have come home to roost.  America’s debt exceeds $14 trillion.  America has suffered three consecutive years of trillion dollar deficits (and faces trillion dollar deficits into the foreseeable future).

    Annual deficits and accumulated debt force America to confront two major financial threats, both with one common cause: unsustainable budget deficits.

    In the short term, America faces a debt ceiling crisis.  Over the longer term, America faces a debt crisis. 

    If trillion dollar deficits continue indefinitely, America’s insolvency and bankruptcy is certain, thereby risking America’s national defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, and everything else the federal government does.

    Debt Bill Deficiencies That Compel a “No” Vote

    The accumulative deficiencies in the Debt Bill compel me to vote “No.”  The deficiencies are:

    1. Minimal Time for Consideration and Deliberation.

    The Debt Bill is 74 pages of interwoven, complicated legal and budgetary terms.  I have read and studied the Debt Bill in the limited time available.  The Debt Bill forces onto our children and grandchildren another $2.4 trillion in debt burden, yet we are expected to vote on it with less than 24 hours notice.

    This is insufficient time to thoroughly understand the Debt Bill’s nuances, for budget experts to digest the Debt Bill and offer their insights, for the public to analyze the legislation and share their insight, and for Congress to make a wise and deliberative decision.

    While some argue the Debt Bill must pass by the White House’s August 2 deadline; I believe it is better to act wisely than in haste.  The economy will be much worse if Congress, in haste, makes a $2.4 trillion error. 

    2. Significant Defense Cuts in FY 2012 & 2013.

    In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts national defense by $2 to $17 billion (the variance is due to different Debt Bill interpretations by the House Armed Services Committee).

    The Debt Bill creates a 12-member Joint Select Committee (six Senators and six Congressmen; six Republicans and six Democrats).  By November 23, the Committee must recommend $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures (spending cuts and/or tax increases).  If the Committee makes a recommendation, Congress must vote on the recommendation on or before January 15. 

    If the Committee splits 6-6 and makes no recommendation, or if either House of Congress rejects the Committee’s recommendation, then the Debt Bill mandates that the Defense budget be cut $60 Billion in FY 2013 (i.e. – in the fiscal year beginning 14 months from now, on October 1, 2013).

    National defense is the top priority of the federal government.  If the Debt Bill passes, there is an unnecessary and substantial risk that it will trigger risky defense cuts in just 14 months that undermine the defense capabilities of America.

    3. The Bill Does Not Fix the Underlying Problem.

    The Bill makes America’s financial challenges worse by inadequately addressing unsustainable deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy and force debt ceiling increases.

    The Debt Bill’s “cuts” bind no future Congresses.  Hence, the only “cuts” that count are those for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013.

    In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts discretionary federal government spending by only $7 billion (versus FY 2011 levels), while overall federal government spending actually increases (“discretionary spending” is less than 30% of total federal government spending). 

    In FY 2013, the Debt Bill increases discretionary federal government spending by $4 billion (over FY 2012 levels).  Overall federal government spending again increases significantly.

    Hence, in both FY 2012 and 2013, the federal government deficit is estimated to exceed $1 trillion/year if the Debt Bill passes and, under the best of scenarios, the Debt Bill’s “solution” increases America’s debt by $2.4 trillion in less than two years, which makes America’s debt problem much worse, not better.

    4. Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. 

    The Debt Bill requires a vote of Congress on a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment but does not require that Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. 

    The July 29 Boehner Bill required passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before the Phase II debt ceiling increase would occur.  The Debt Bill eliminates the requirement for a Balanced Budget Amendment, thereby eliminating the only long-term fix to America’s unsustainable deficits. 

    5. Punting the Debt Ceiling Crisis to 2013. 

    Because of 2012 election considerations, the Debt Bill “kicks the can down the road” to 2013, when a financially weaker America will be less capable of facing yet another debt ceiling crisis. 

    America will be weaker because debt service burdens will be $2.4 trillion more and the total debt of $16.7 trillion will likely be subject to higher interest rates and more onerous payment obligations.

    America must face its unsustainable deficit issue while it is stronger, not weaker.  The longer America waits, the worse the economic outcome will be.

    6. Credit Rating Cuts.

    In my judgment, the Debt Bill substantially increases the long-term risk of a cut in America’s credit rating. 

    Standard & Poor stated on July 14, 2011, that America’s credit rating is at risk if Washington has “not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden and [is] not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future.”  Standard & Poor president Deven Sharma reiterated this concern on July 27, 2011 when he testified before the House Financial Services Committee that, “The more important issue is really the long-term growth rate of the debt… that is the more important issue at hand.”

    Similarly, Moody’s stated on July 13, 2011 that, if the debt ceiling is raised, America’s credit rating outlook “would very likely be changed to negative… unless [there is a] substantial and credible agreement [on] long-term deficit reduction.”

    The Debt Bill does not cut America’s short or long-term deficits enough to minimize the risk of downgrade in America’s credit rating… a downgrade that will, in turn, drive up America’s debt service cost and reduce funding for all other federal government programs.  To make matters worse, if America’s interest rates go up; state, local and private interest rates are likely to also go up… thereby hurting all Americans at every level.

    The Solution

    The best solution that protects America from the short term debt ceiling and long term insolvency threats is a debt ceiling increase coupled with a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that is phased in over a 5 year period.

    Inasmuch as constitutional amendments often take years to pass, time that America may not have, the debt ceiling should be raised in a two-step process.  The first step partially raises the debt ceiling when Congress passes a substantive and effective Balanced Budget Amendment.  If the Senate and House concur, this can be done in as little as a week.

    The second step raises the rest of the debt ceiling requirement when the states ratify the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment.  This process gives the states an incentive to ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment in less than one year (or trigger the effects of not raising the debt ceiling).

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 197)

December 19, 2012 – 6:28 am

 

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

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. David Axelrod has said“They help him focus on the real problems people are facing. He really a absorbs these letters, and often shares then with us.” 

I watched the video by the Democrat National Convention on 9-6-12 that showed your beautiful wife saying about your family: “We sit around the dinner table (with our kids) and he is he last to be asked, ‘Oh yeah, how was your day Dad?’ You know really he  is an afterthought.”

As a father and a husband I want to thank you for demonstrating to others that men need to keep their priorities straight.

We got to lower taxes in order to encourage job growth and if we go down the road of higher taxes then we will go further into a recession.

I wrote last week about the destructive and self-defeating impact of high state taxes. Simply stated, when states such as California, Illinois, and New York get too greedy, the geese with the golden eggs fly across the border.

And that was one of my main points in this CNBC debate about state governments and class-warfare tax policy with Jared Bernstein.

Since you never get the opportunity to make all your points in an interview, here are a few additional thoughts.

  • Jared admits that tax rates can get too high, but then he claims that the Laffer Curve only exists “in the heads of people like Dan and Arthur Laffer.” Those are mutually inconsistent statements.
  • Jared seems to think it’s important that big business is siding with big government in Oklahoma and supporting the income tax. But that’s hardly a surprise since large companies often prefer corporatism.
  • Jared actually cited Massachusetts and New Jersey as low-tax states, a point that even the host thought was a bit kooky. I guess this means France is a low-tax country in Jared’s fantasy world.

But I also think I made a mistake. When asked how states can get rid of their income taxes, I mentioned that sales taxes do less damage – per dollar raised – than income taxes. That’s true, but I should have stated first and foremost that states should reduce the burden of government spending.

One final point. This cartoon shows what eventually happens in a tax-and-spend society.

P.S. Jared was the co-author of the infamous study claiming that Obama’s so-called stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. Look at this chart and draw your own conclusions.

______________

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

Sincerely,

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)