Over the past decade, Congresses and Presidents haveundertaken a
surge of spending that has accelerated America’s speed along the road to
economic ruin. Since 2000, non-defense discretionary outlays have expanded 50
percent faster than inflation. Antipoverty spending has risen 83 percent faster
than inflation, and other programs have grown rapidly. Despite multiple
government audits that have shown many programs to be duplicative or
ineffective, no significant federal program has been eliminated in more than a
decade. Government continues to grow, financed by taxes on Americans and an
explosion of borrowing that is imposing huge additional burdens on future
generations.
Thus, although the major entitlement programs are the primary driver of
long-term spending and debt, Congress must take tough action on discretionary
programs and smaller entitlement programs to reach a balanced budget and ensure
that federal spending is smaller, more effective, and more efficient.
Under the Heritage plan, non-defense discretionary spending—appropriated
programs such as foreign aid, K–12 education, transportation, health research,
housing, community development, and veterans health care, which account for 4.5
percent of GDP—is reduced to 2.0 percent of GDP by 2021. These reforms will
reduce the burden of government, thereby empowering families and entrepreneurs
and promoting economic prosperity.
In addition, antipoverty spending is reformed. Obamacare is repealed, as
noted earlier, and replaced with an alternative solution to uninsurance and high
costs. Agriculture and education programs are structurally reformed. The central
goal for defense is to guarantee national security as prudently and economically
as possible. With improvements in efficiency, we estimate that defense needs
will require spending approximately 4 percent of GDP for the foreseeable
future.
Rather than across-the-board spending reductions, which would not set true
priorities for government, the Heritage plan follows six guidelines in designing
reforms:
The federal government should focus on performing a limited
number of appropriate governmental duties well while empowering state and local
governments, which are closer to the people, to address local needs creatively
in such areas as transportation, justice, job training, the environment, and
economic development.
Functions that the private sector can perform more efficiently
should be transferred to the private sector.
Duplicative programs should be consolidated both to save money
and to improve government assistance.
Federal programs should more precisely target those who are
actually in need, which means reducing aid to large businesses and upper-income
individuals who do not need taxpayer assistance and enforcing program
eligibility rules better.
Outdated and ineffective programs should be eliminated.
Waste, fraud, and abuse should be cleaned up wherever found.
By following these six guidelines, the Heritage plan produces a more
effective and efficient government and promotes stronger economic growth.
U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner, Arkansas’s largest annual political event. (Did you notice that besides Mike Ross, EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT THAT PRYOR MENTIONS DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB IN WASHINGTON IS NO LONGER IN OFFICE, SNYDER, LINCOLN, and BERRY)
_______________________________________________
Ernest Istook at the Saint Paul Tea Party Rally 4/16/2011 Part 1
Ernest Istook, US Congressman, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org, spoke at the Saint Paul Tea Party Rally 4/16/2011. Hosted by North Star Tea Party Patriots, and Sue Jeffers.
________________________________
Several weeks ago I heard Republican Congressman Tim Griffin say that it was time for the people in Congress to put on their grown-up pants and tackle the federal spending problem. I wondered where he got that phrase, but now I know. The one thing that remains to be discovered is will Senator Pryor ( Arkansas’ only Democrat left in Washington) follow suit with the other five from Arkansas and support a solution to the federal spending problem?
This month’s KARN/AFP-Arkansas Conservative Luncheon Series will feature the Heritage Foundation’s Ernest Istook.
“A budget reflects our priorities as a nation, and I strongly believe that caring for the elderly should remain a core value of America. The Ryan plan takes a different approach, destroying Medicare as we know it. Dismantling this safety net for our seniors is unacceptable, but providing tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans on the backs of our seniors is inexcusable. I will oppose this plan,”
It is my view that Paul Ryan’s plan takes a serious look at our nation’s problems and confronts them. Below is an article by Ernest Istook that is excellent:
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has proposed a budget for grown-ups.
Washington’s big spenders have responded with the tired clichés we expect from defenders of big government:
“Pulling the rug out from under seniors,” says Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).
“Waging war on American workers,” says Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA).
“A path to poverty for America’s seniors and children,” claims House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
“The tea party has hijacked the Republican caucus,” says House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).
Pee Wee Herman could have delivered more creative comebacks. But adult conversations about serious issues are lacking in Washington, D.C. Ryan’s plan should be rated at least R for Realism, while the dismissive comments are PG for Politically Guided.
Ryan’s plan is a big deal. A very big deal. Its proposed $6.2 trillion of savings (compared to Obama’s budget) over ten years is literally 100 times larger than the $61 billion that the GOP tried to cut this year — and that Democrats fought against ferociously.
Changing Medicare to a defined contribution plan is a good course to pursue, and of course a tough sell. But it makes a huge difference in controlling spending and reducing deficits. The same with revising Medicaid to give states flexibility to deliver care more efficiently — yet with limited federal outlays.
As The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Dependency notes, dependence on government is skyrocketing. Ryan’s plan would address that.
Spending limitations, rollbacks and freezes. Repeal of Obamacare. Cutting corporate welfare (including farm subsidies) as well as overly generous giveaways to individuals. Structural reform for federal health care programs, which are the biggest runaway spending items. Ryan is serious in a way that few other politicians are.
But his “Path to Prosperity” is about economic growth, not just spending. Tax simplification is one aspect, and so is lowering corporate taxes so businesses are not pushed overseas by what is now the world’s highest rate. A Heritage Foundation analysis finds this would create a million jobs a year for starters, and double that rate in short order.
It’s not perfect. Our national defense needs are greater than Ryan projects. Social Security’s problems are not addressed. And welfare reform should go beyond what he lays out.
But Ryan’s proposal is good, tough stuff — strong medicine that we need, not politically correct placebos that the plan’s opponents are already peddling.
We live in a time when cute sound bites substitute for debate and false claims are used to justify inaction despite our fiscal crisis. While most of his critics carp without offering any alternatives, Ryan has delivered a needed challenge before we fall totally over the fiscal cliff.
Paul Ryan respects Americans — especially taxpayers. He speaks to us like adults. For the rest of Washington, it’s time to put away childish things.
Ernest Istook is a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
_________________________________
I respect Senator Pryor’s political instincts, and I do think he will find his political views moving more to the conservative side of many of the issues because Arkansas is now turning more conservative than ever.
On Wednesday April 19th at the Political Animals Club in Little Rock, Senator Mark Pryor said he will not vote to raise the federal government’s borrowing limit unless there is a “real and meaningful commitment” to debt reduction by cutting spending and overhauling the tax code.
Is Senator Pryor starting to be more conservative in his political views? It probably did not go without notice that of the five federal offices up for election in November of 2010, only the one Democrat Mike Ross was able to get re-elected. In fact, Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln was not even able to get 36% of the vote.
Senator Pryor has asked for spending cut ideas, and I have sent him several dozen ideas myself. I have received two generic replies. On May 24th Senator Pryor wrote:
“I am deeply concerned about current spending levels and our ever-growing national debt. I have consistently said that everything must be on the table when it comes to reducing our debt and deficit, and I mean it… I believe we can create a long-term budget plan that significantly reduces our national debt while maintaining adequate funding for our nation’s priorities. This challenge must include reducing spending, addressing entitlement programs, and reforming the tax code.”
It is my view that cutting spending is the only way to balance the budget. Currently the tax revenues are around 2.1 billion and spending is over 3.7 billion. Senator John Boozman favors a balanced budget amendment, but Senator Pryor opposes it.
Federal spending has grown 62 percent faster than inflation since 2000. Anti-poverty spending has surged 89 percent faster than inflation since 2000. Nearly half of this increase occurred in the past two years. Since 2000, Medicaid and Food Stamp rolls have expanded by nearly 20 million. This has resulted in increased government dependency.
If Senator does get re-elected he may find that he is the only Democratic Senator from the South left in the Senate after the elections of 2014. It will be interesting to see how the drama plays out this summer concerning the effort to raise the federal government’s borrowing limit above 14.3 trillion.
Below are some of the previous posts I have made about Senator Pryor:
The Debt Bomb: A Decade of DC Spending is Driving America Closer to an Economic Apocalypse Alexis Garcia reports on America’s exploding debt. Experts blame entitlements like Social Security and government spending. But what is the solution? Can we raise taxes without crushing the economy and the middle class? Does Obama really want to lower […]
Mark Levin discusses the two amendments needed to re-establish Constitutionalism as well as other things that need to be done to fix the issues facing the nation. Mark is brilliant at keep his eye on the objective and does this every night on http://www.marklevinshow.com. This excerpt is from 1/27/2011. Steve Brawner in his article “Safer […]
Mark Levin interviews Senator Hatch 1/27/2011 about the balanced budget amendment. Mark is very excited about the balanced budget amendment being proposed by Senator Orin Hatch and John Cornyn and he discusses the amendment with Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch explains the bill it’s ramifications and limitations. Senator Hatch actually worked on this bill with renowned […]
John Brummett in his article “Pryor’s words drift in gentle breeze,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 24, 2011 asserted: Raising the debt ceiling is essential to paying our debts and keeping the national and world economy functioning. Spending cuts must be made in the future, not by reneging on debt from the past. It is disingenuous […]
Dr. Jay Barth with Hendrix College comments on our latest poll results on Arkansas politics (clip from Talkbusiness) Talk Business reported today in the article “Poll Shows Beebe Strength, Pryor Shaky,” the following: A new Talk Business-Hendrix College Poll shows Gov. Mike Beebe (D) maintaining his high job approval rating, while Sen. Mark Pryor (D) […]
U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner, Arkansas’s largest annual political event. Mark Pryor is up for re-election to the Senate in 2014. It is my opinion that the only reason he did not have an opponent in 2008 was because the Republicans in Arkansas did not want to go […]
In the article “Mark Pryor: I won’t vote to raise debt limit without reforms,” April 20, 2011, Arkansas Business reports: U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor says he won’t vote to raise the federal government’s borrowing limit unless there is a “real and meaningful commitment” to reducing the nation’s debt by cutting spending and overhauling the tax […]
Congressman Mike Pence Speaks at CPAC 2010 I have started a series on the differences of Mark Pryor and John Boozman on the issue of a balanced budget amendment. I have also spent a lot of time talking about the prospects of Mark Pryor’s re-election in 2014. Today I am looking at the difference between […]
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have just done so at 9:51 Central Standard Time on April 7, 2011. Here is the first portion of my […]
April 5 (Bloomberg) — Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, talks about the possibility of a government shutdown if Democratic and Republican leaders fail to reach a budget compromise by April 8, when current funding authority expires. Edwards, speaking with Deirdre Bolton on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack,” also discusses House Budget […]
Mark Pryor made some comments on April 6, 2011 on the floor of the U.S.Senate concerning the possible federal government shutdown. I will provide all of his comments in my next few posts. Here is a portion below: Mr. President. We find ourselves in dangerous territory while Republicans and Democrats continue to point fingers and […]
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the CATO institute, explains that the rate of return on social security will be much lower for todays youth. Steve Brawner wrote in his article “Tiptoeing toward the third rail,” (Arkansas News Bureau, Jan 9,): Social Security has long been considered the “third rail” for American politicians, meaning it’s […]
HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com CBS — October 19, 2010 — New York Times’ Jeff Zeleny talks to Jan Crawford about the state of Democrats in the South… Are they a dying species? In the article “Southern Democrat much closer to extinction after GOP wave,” (Washington Times, Nov 4, 2010), Ben Evans notes: After this week’s elections, the […]
HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Roland Martin appears on Rick’s List with Rick Sanchez and the Best Political Team on television (Candy Crowley, John King, Jeffery Toobin, Ed Rollins, Gloria Borger and Victoria Toensing) to discuss day two of the Elena Kagan Supreme Court confirmation hearings. During the analysis, Senator Graham and Elena Kagan had an interesting exchange over […]
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 […]
HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Mark Pryor said on Arkansas Week in Review which was broadcast on AETN on Dec 24th “We are in a perpetual debt cycle and a perpetual spending cycle that is unsustainable….We will put together a system or a formula where we will get our debt under control. We will get this ship turned […]
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 […]
HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth Senator Graham and Elena Kagan discuss Former Nominee Miguel Estrada HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth On December 24, the Arkansas Times Blog reported: The Senate ended its lame duck session Wednesday without confirming Fort Smith attorney Paul K. Holmes as a federal judge in Arkansas’s western district.Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said he was disappointed that Holmes’ nomination did […]
HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth (Paul Ryan outlines what has happened since the stimulus has been passed) 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 […]
CHICAGO – Republican Tim Pawlenty was set to propose an economic policy Tuesday that would simplify individual tax rates to just three options and cut taxes on business by more than half as he offered himself as a replacement to Barack Obama in the Democratic president’s hometown.
The former Minnesota governor also was to propose that any services available privately, such as the postal services or mortgages, should not be something government handles. He said he would require a vote in Congress to extend any regulation or he would cancel it. And he said he would eliminate taxes on investments and inheritances.
“But our policies can’t just be about simply cutting rates. They must also promote freedom and free markets,” Pawlenty said in excerpts provided ahead of the morning speech at the University of Chicago.
Pawlenty’s speech, his first as a declared presidential candidate, also kept an eye on presidential politics and blamed Obama for an anemic economy. He said Americans are ready to innovate and create jobs, but “they have been discouraged and weighed down by President Obama’s big government and heavy-handed regulations.”
In a speech expected to be heavy on specifics, Pawlenty was ready to propose a three-tier income tax system:
• The estimated 45 percent of U.S. households that did not pay income taxes in 2010 would see no change in their tax rates.
• Individuals would pay 10 percent tax on the first $50,000 of income. Couples earning $100,000 would also pay that rate.
• “Everything above that would be taxed at 25 percent,” Pawlenty said.
He also wanted to cut business taxes, reducing the current rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.
Before the event, Pawlenty’s Democratic successor in the Minnesota governor’s office dismissed the proposals as the latest ploy from a politician who cares more about rhetoric than results.
“I think it’s ironic that he’s talking about a fiscal plan for the entire country when he left his state a mess,” Gov. Mark Dayton said in an interview. “He decided he was going to leave and left it to his successor. They knew they were going to kick this down the road.”
In speeches, including the one Tuesday at the university where Obama taught law, Pawlenty boasts that he balanced the Minnesota budget during his time in office although he fails to mention he left behind a projected $5 billion deficit.
Dayton said the cuts under consideration for the next two-year budget include cuts to special education programs, increases in college students’ tuition and limited availability of home health care for seniors to offset the deficits.
When he announced his 2012 White House bid, Pawlenty promised policy details but kept his focus on rhetoric. He went to Florida to promise an overhaul of Social Security and Medicare, programs sacrosanct to the state’s seniors. In New York, he told Wall Street a Pawlenty presidency would not bail out investors. And in Iowa he promised to phase out subsidies to corn-based ethanol, a deal breaker for many in a state that relies on those federal dollars for a way of life.
He pitched himself as a truth teller but was unwilling to offer specifics. Instead, he promised a series of policy announcements that would leave voters convinced he was a policy heavyweight.
Tuesday’s speech was a first step toward that effort. Appealing to small-government conservatives, he suggested what he called “The Google Test.”
“If you can find a good or service on the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn’t need to be doing it,” Pawlenty said. “The post office, the government printing office, Amtrak, Fannie (Mae) and Freddie (Mac) were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. That’s no longer the case.”
And he proposed that taxes on investments, bank interest, stock dividends and inheritances should all be zero.
“Government has no moral or economic basis to claim a second share of the same income. When you deposit a dollar in your bank account, every penny should be forevermore yours and your children’s, not the federal government’s,” he said.
Pawlenty is the second would-be GOP challenger to lay out a policy speech in Obama’s hometown. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour also delivered a blistering economic speech here before he announced he would not join the Republican presidential field.
On Monday, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania declared he would seek the GOP presidential nomination. Last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney formally announced he would seek the White House for the second time. And before the end of the month, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman were set to announce their next political moves.
A debate next week in early nominating New Hampshire stood to clarify the contest that is fast approaching its first test of organization: the straw poll in Ames, Iowa, set for August. Among the serious contenders, only Huntsman was expected to skip.
This video takes you to the United Estates–a gated community in sunny Florida–to help you understand the impact of Congress decision to annually raise our nations debt limit without addressing the out-of-control spending that keeps us buried in debt.
The first thing I intend to do is join the tea party. Then I’m going to refuse to raise my debt limit. Then I’m going to call the Visa people…
“Thank you, and remember: Vote Palin-Bachmann.”
You are thinking this is absurd. You are right, of course.
But you are not intellectually entitled to call it absurd if you are among the seven in 10 Americans telling pollsters you don’t want the federal government’s debt ceiling raised. You are not intellectually entitled if you are one of these right-wing politicians pandering to this tea-drunken grandstand by threatening to vote not to raise it.
Here is how real fiscal responsibility works: You repay the debt that you have incurred to date. You make spending reductions prospectively by showing sufficient discipline to reduce the future pace at which you incur debt. You dare not let your existing debt go unpaid lest your credit score suffer and you get denied the next time you find yourself in a bit of a pinch and need to finance a refrigerator at Sears.
I think the answer to this is simple. We must have deep cuts in the budget in order to get enough Republicans on board to raise the debt ceiling. Several Democrats agree with this too.
More than 150 economists back House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner’s call to match any increase in the debt limit with spending cuts of equal size, according to a letter released by the Republican leader’s office on Wednesday.
The letter will give Boehner an important talking point as he and his fellow House Republicans meet with President Barack Obama at 10 a.m. to discuss the debt limit and other fiscal issues.
“An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government’s spending addiction will harm private-sector job creation in America,” the letter said.
Signatories include Nobel laureate Robert Mundell of Columbia University and economists from schools like New York University and Georgetown University, as well as conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.
The Treasury Department has warned that the country could face a default that could push it back into recession and roil markets across the globe if it does not raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit by Aug 2. Treasury has been tapping federal employee pensions and other funds to pay the nation’s bills since it reached the current debt limit on May 16.
Republicans say they will not back any increase that does not include steep spending cuts and other limits to ensure that debt stays at a manageable level.
Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. Here is a portion of this recent article:
Now that Osama bin Laden has been successfully dispatched to the eternal damnation he so richly deserves, Washington is ready to return to the more mundane question of whether the Obama administration will be allowed to spend this country into oblivion.
The next big fiscal fight will be over when and how to increase the debt limit. The administration has been hard at work trying to shape the message and public opinion. Unsurprisingly, much of that message is less than 100 percent accurate. Here are some myths about the debt ceiling and the upcoming debate about raising it:
5. Only Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling. The media and the administration want to turn this into a partisan fight. The ongoing narrative is that radical Republicans in thrall to the Tea Party want to wreck our finances, while Democrats responsibly want to pay our bills. In truth, a number of prominent Democrats are on record opposing a debt-limit increase without substantial reductions in spending. They include Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), Mark Pryor (D., Ark.), and Joe Manchin (D., W. Va.). Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) normally a reliable liberal vote, has been expressing ambivalence. And the most prominent spending limit liable to be offered as a condition for raising the limit, the CAP Amendment proposed by Sen. Bob Corker (R. Tenn.) is cosponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.). The real story is that a small group of extreme liberals wants to keep spending more in the face of bipartisan opposition.
So far, Republicans have not been very good about presenting their message. If they want to win this fight, they are going to have to do a lot more to correct the record.
Below info from ReasonTV:
Some say the world will end in fire and some say in ice.
But in Washington, a lot of people say it will end if we don’t continually raise the debt ceiling.
The statutory debt limit, or debt ceiling, represents the maximum amount of debt the federal government can carry at any given time. The limit was created in 1917 so that Congress wouldn’t have to vote every time the government wanted to increase the amount of debt (which was becoming a more and more frequent occasion). Since then, the Treasury Department has had the authority to issue new debt up to whatever the limit is to fund government needs. Last year, the limit was raised to $14.3 trillion, an amount that is about to reached.
As it approaches, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said failing to raise the limit would likely mean the U.S. would default on its debt, creating “real chaos” in place of the fake chaos that’s out there now. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said that failing to raise the limit would be “deeply irresponsible” and and Austan Goolsbee, President Obama’s chief economic adviser, has said that not raising the limit would create “the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”
_______________________________________
The Debt Bomb: A Decade of DC Spending is Driving America Closer to an Economic Apocalypse
Alexis Garcia reports on America’s exploding debt. Experts blame entitlements like Social Security and government spending. But what is the solution? Can we raise taxes without crushing the economy and the middle class? Does Obama really want to lower the debt, or does he support continued deficit spending? See interviews with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Brian Riedl, Jason Peuquet and former Congressman Ernest Istook (R-OK).
Top congressional Republicans said on Sunday they would be open to a compromise on healthcare costs, one of the biggest stumbling blocks in a deal to get the United States’ debt under control.
Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee, said he would “absolutely” be willing to negotiate with Democrats, who have hammered his plan to scale back government-run health plans for the poor and the elderly.
With Ryan’s plan headed for likely defeat in the Democratic-controlled Senate, that chamber’s top Republican said it was time for “an adult conversation” on ways to keep healthcare costs under control.
“Let’s just stipulate that nobody is trying to throw Grandma off the cliff,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Health reform is a top sticking point as the two sides try to hash out a budget deal that would give lawmakers political cover to back an increase in the country’s borrowing authority.
And as the 2012 election season gets underway, it is shaping up to be a top campaign issue as well.
Ryan’s proposal to partially privatize the Medicare health plan for the elderly has already imperiled the presidential hopes of one Republican, Newt Gingrich, who faced a fierce conservative backlash last week after he described it as “right-wing social engineering.”
Polls show that Ryan’s proposed changes are unpopular with voters, and McConnell said he is not urging his fellow Republicans to support it when it comes up for a vote in the Senate this week.
“We have other budgets that Republicans are pushing,” McConnell said. “We’re not going to be able to coalesce behind just one.”
The United States reached its $14.3 trillion debt limit last week, and the Treasury Department says it can stave off a default until early August.
Experts say a default would push the country back into recession and roil markets across the globe.
Republicans and some Democrats say they won’t back a ceiling increase that does not include steps to rein in the debt load, which has more than doubled over the past decade.
In talks led by Vice President Joe Biden, top lawmakers have agreed to at least $150 billion in spending cuts, but that is far short of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that outside experts say is needed to stabilize the debt over a 10-year span.
On healthcare, the two sides are separated by a gulf of trillions of dollars. Ryan’s plan would save $2.2 trillion by scaling back Medicaid, the government-run health plan for the poor, and repeal President Barack Obama’s signature health reform program, the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
Obama, in turn, has proposed saving $480 billion by accelerating reforms in the program — a non-starter for Republicans who insist it must be repealed.
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Ryan said compromise was possible — reversing an earlier stance that a deal on healthcare would not be reachable until after the election.
“Of course, absolutely,” Ryan said, when asked if he would be open to negotiation. “Of course we would, this is the legislative process. But let me be clear: We are the only ones who have put out a plan.”
Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen, a participant in the Biden talks, said Washington could find savings by lowering the price the government pays for prescription drugs, rather than scaling back benefits for patients.
Van Hollen repeated Democrats’ contention that any debt-reduction plan requires higher taxes, saying Republicans’ reluctance to consider them forced Ryan to push his unpopular cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
“You can’t do it with a one-sided, lopsided approach,” he said on “Meet the Press.”
McConnell declined to say on Fox whether more tax revenue would be part of a final deal, but later in the day he reiterated his firm anti-tax stance.
“There will be no tax increases in connection with raising the debt ceiling. We’re talking about spending reductions,” he said in a prepared statement.
Today I got to attend the first ever “Conservative Lunch Series” presented by KARN and Americans for Prosperity Foundation at the Little Rock Hilton on University Avenue. This monthly luncheon will be held the fourth Wednesday of every month. The speaker for today’s luncheon was John Fund.
John Fund writes the weekly “On the Trail” column for OpinionJournal.com. He is author of “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy” (Encounter, 2004).
He joined The Wall Street Journal as a deputy editorial features editor in 1984 and was a member of the editorial board from 1995 through 2001. The articles he has written have appeared in Esquire, Reader’s Digest, Reason, The New Republic, and National Review. He became an editorial page writer specializing in politics and government in October 1986 and was a member of the Journal’s editorial board from 1995 through 2001. Next month’s guest speaker will be Andrew Breitbart.
First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN who came up with the idea of this luncheon, and then from Teresa Crossland of Americans for Prosperity. After listening to their inspiring short talks I had determined in my heart that I was going to get the word out about these luncheons to all my conservative friends who want to know what is going on politically in Washington and in our beloved Arkansas.
John Fund touched on several subjects but the one that caught my interest the most is the observation that he made about the behavior of three Democrat Presidents: Jimmy Carter (elected in 1976), Bill Clinton (elected 1992) and Barack Obama (elected 2008).
Fund mentioned a meeting that Ronald Reagan had with his former campaign advisors shortly after Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976. In that speech Reagan told them that Democrats can’t get their way unless a couple of things happen. First, Republicans forsake their values and join them. Unfortunately, Richard Nixon had done that just a few years earlier. Second, liberals have to be smart enough to run a candidate that will appear to govern from the middle. However, Reagan told his campaign workers that sure enough the only problem for that Democrat that gets elected President is that he will be required by the liberals in Congress to govern from the left and that is a prescription for disaster every time. Whenever and wherever liberalism has been tried, it has always failed.
Fund said sure enough 3 years later President Carter had brought on the USA 21% interest rates, 12% inflation and 10% unemployment and Reagan’s slogan was:
“Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”
Fund went down the events surrounding Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama and drew comparisons. It was amazing to listen to the insights that Reagan had in 1976 and how these events happened over and over.
Not only did Jimmy Carter scare the public with his liberal policies, but the first thing Bill Clinton did when he was elected was scare the public with his “Hillarycare” healthcare bill and the result was the landslide victory for Republicans in 1994. The same could be said for President Obama in 2010!!!!
Fund noted that the Republicans have a refreshing group of candidates that will be running in the Republican Primary this time around. He did call Donald Trump an entertainer that will drop out and not run. He also said that Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels (Tolbert says Daniels will decide shortly if he will run) and several other candidates had a good chance to win. I was wondering if he would give more names and possibly comment on former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, but he didn”t.
Someone a lot more in the know than me floats another theory. According to the scuttlebutt, Barbour’s exit yesterday has begun to tip the scales in favor of Huckabee pulling the trigger on jumping into the race but it has also changed his way of thinking.
Fund noted that this year will be different than the past because we will have fresh blood in the race. Fund observed, “Republicans have had a Bush, Nixon, or Dole on the ticket every election since 1948 except one (1964).”
How do the Republicans and Democrats go about picking their presidential candidates. Fund asserted,“The republicans have a shallow gene pool, but the democrats are like kids on blind dates that keep falling in love. They fell in love with Carter, Kerry, Dukakis, and now Obama.”
The Democrats use a “Blind date” method of selecting the Presidential candidate. Who is popular? Who has the charisma? They look at everyone, find someone interesting, and decide to “try them out”. After they are elected, everyone gets to know who they are and what they stand for as a President. There were a lot of chuckles when this theory was disclosed. Mr. Fund went on to prove his point by a brief review of some candidates in the last century. There did seem to be a preponderance of evidence to prove the point.
What about the Republicans? Who is next in line? There is a definite pattern of behavior from 1948 through 2008. They tend to nominate whoever has been around a while.
Mr Fund did take time to sign copies of his book and I briefly got to visit with him when I was getting a copy signed. I told him that I blogged about him this week (yesterday and the day before ) and he asked my site. Instead of telling him to type in www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com , I told him to google “Milton Friedman Arkansas” and my website would come up a lot since I have a lot of Friedman video clips and quotes on my blog.
Next month’s guest is Andrew Breitbart and the luncheon will be held on Wednesday May 25th. This is the first in a series of posts that I will be making over the next few days on the things that I learned at today’s luncheon. I want to encourage everyone to check out next month’s luncheon.
Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart is publisher of the news portals Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv, and BigHollywood.com. Andrew co-wrote the best-selling attack on celebrity culture, Hollywood, Interrupted and was the primary developer for The Huffington Post.
John Fund
John Fund is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal and its OpinionJournal.com and an on-air contributor to 24-hour cable news networks CNBC and MSNBC. He is the author of several best selling books.
David Boaz of CATO joins John to discuss the massive impact of Milton Friedman on America and the world.
___________________________________________
He was interviewed by Alice, a ten year old cancer patient
Kate Middleton visits the Youth Action Northern Ireland center in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on March 8, 2011.
_______________________________________________
Kate Middleton arrives with fiance Prince William (not pictured) at the official opening of Darwen Aldridge Community Academy on April 11, 2011, in Darwen, northwest England.
KATE MIDDLETON The Girl Who Would Be Paparazzi Queen
Out: Barack and Michelle Obama
The queen sent gold-embossed invitations to 40 heads of state, but not to President Obama or first lady Michelle. The Obamas will get an official state visit in May, however, the first of its kind since 2003. It was suggested that the state visit is compensation for the missing wedding invitation—all because of the extra security costs involved with protecting the president.
The liberal Pat Lynch in his article “Worry Inc.” Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, April 4, 2011 commented:
While the budget cutters are busy going after programs that help mere citizens, any notion of bringing taxrates for the wealthy back to the levels of the Clinton era, when there was a federal surplus, is off the table.
Liberals always think they can raise the taxes on the rich and everything else will take care of itself. The problem with our deficit is not that the politicians need more money but they need to spend less. I heard Congressman Tim Griffin say that on Monday.
Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation discusses the newly released budget by President Bush.
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. He has discussed budget policy on NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and C-SPAN. He also participates in the bipartisan “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour,” which holds town hall meetings across America focusing on the looming crisis in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Myth #2: Future deficits are “the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”
Fact: These policies play a relatively minor role in the growth of future deficits.
During his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama asserted:
At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.[7]
In other words, according to President Obama, the massive budget deficits are President Bush’s fault, but the data do not support this assertion. President Bush implemented the three policies mentioned by President Obama in the early 2000s. Yet by 2007—the last year before the recession— the budget deficit had stabilized at $161 billion. Since the combined annual cost of these three Bush-era policies is now relatively stable, they cannot have suddenly caused a trillion-dollar leap in budget deficits beginning in 2009.[8]
_________________________________________________
However, the larger problem is that the President’s entire methodology fails basic statistics. With Washington set to collect $33 trillion in taxes and spend $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine which spending programs “caused” the $13 trillion deficit? By the President’s methodology, one could blame any $13 trillion group of spending programs (or tax cuts) for the entire budget deficit. For example, the President could have blamed much of the 10-year budget deficit on Social Security (10-year cost of $9.2 trillion), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), net interest on the debt ($6.1 trillion), or non-defense discretionary spending ($7.5 trillion).[12] (See Chart 3.) There is no legitimate, mathematical reason for President Obama to ignore all of these more expensive policies and single out the $4.7 trillion in tax cuts, the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Medicare drug entitlement. A better methodology would focus on which program costs are actually growing and pushing the deficit up.
Finally, there is some hypocrisy at work. President Obama criticizes President Bush for “not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.” Yet he would extend $4 trillion of these policies (while repealing $700 billion in tax cuts) without paying for them either. By his own faulty logic, he is almost as irresponsible as President Bush.
_______________________________________
This is part of the series I am doing on Famous Arkansans. This is part two on Wayne Jackson who grew up in West Memphis.
W.J – To be honest with American Studios and the Elvis sessions, they were just plain recording sessions. The “Gods from Heaven” did not come down & there was no fire & brimstone either. It was just a recording session that just happened to be with Elvis. There was of course a lot more magic in recording Elvis than there was in recording a nobody but American studios had some great talent going through it at the time.
The first time I actually heard Elvis sing ‘In the Ghetto’ however I was quietly sitting with my horn and looking at the music. I hadn’t heard any of it yet and I suddenly realised that this was really special stuff. I just got a chill up my spine hearing that. I knew that it was going to be a landmark record for Elvis because it was about such a current topic. I thought “My God, here we all are genuinely in the ghetto!” There really was a guy with an automatic rifle on the roof in case of something bad happened – especially after Martin Luther King died.
You see American Studios was in the worst part of town. Stax was a little nearer Graceland, but American & Hi studios, all of them were in the worst parts of town. ‘Suspicious Minds’ was also an emotional subject for Elvis at that time as well and it was a thrill to be involved in those songs, knowing that they would be so important to his future career as they were.
EIN – Interestingly Dusty Springfield’s fabulous LP ‘Dusty In Memphis’ was released on the same day January 13, 1969 that Elvis came in to American Studios to record! Featuring the same line up as Elvis’ band wasn’t ‘Son Of A Preacher Man’ a stunner?
W.J – It was one of the best of the era. There was so much music and also a lot of poverty and we all worked to earn something extra and I was one of those people.
EIN – Were you brought in for sessions or did you play for whoever came along.
W.J – Chips Moman produced Stax’s big early hit ‘Last Night’ and I played on that. He liked my horn sound and so anytime they needed horns at American they’d call us up. We also worked Muscle Shoals studios too!
At the time I’d known Elvis for lots of years and recently he had been singing those poor “Movie Songs” which we were not that excited about since we’d recently been recording three number 1 records each a week! But the songwriters really had their day with him, including Mark James and ‘Suspicious Minds.’ In fact Mark James is a good friend of mine and we wrote some songs together.
EIN – How did Chips Moman’s session work out since there were a lot of overdubs. Were you there when Elvis recorded the vocals?
W.J – Next door was a restaurant & upstairs there was kid of a holding area. Because the studio was so small we would often go off with the Backing singers while the rhythm section worked out the backbone of the songs. We would be playing poker upstairs while they were cutting tracks downstairs. Then we would come down and Elvis would be singing and we’d put the horns in with the track. Elvis liked to sing with the horns and hear them together with the background vocals. So although we did overdub the horns on ‘In The Ghetto’ Elvis actually sang with us while we overdubbed those. You’ve got to understand that the studio was surprisingly small so that there was not much room for the band plus the horns & back-up voices.
EIN – Like Sun Studios?
W.J – Did you visit Sun Studios? Well it was just like that room – which still has all the magic hanging around in there. Sun Studios is probably the most important place in the world for Rock’n’roll and you can certainly feel that something very important happened in that room. I reckon you might even feel it even if you didn’t know what it was because there are such energies left over from all that creativity. But that all happened before I got into the business. I never got to play at Sun until Johnny Rivers did a session, Rufus Thomas too. We also worked with U2 when they recorded there in 1988 to produce their ‘Rattle & Hum’ album.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) seems to fight back tears while listening to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard address a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress from the floor of the House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol March 9, 2011 in Washington, DC. Gillard emphasized the long and strong bond between her country and the United States.
Hunter Hatcher at Looney Bin in Little Rock Last Night
Last night (March 16, 2011) at the Looney Bin in Little Rock. I must say that the other 10 comics were just not funny at all. Hunter got the most laughs by far. Here is a joke he did to finish off the night.
Matt Jones skit from 1/14/2011 show at Luigi’s Pizza in Bryant, Arkansas
I wonder if the speaker of the house got to read Gene Lyons article (that is mentioned below)which accuses him and other Republicans of the main reason the federal debt is so out of control today!!!
Brian Riedl, Senior Domestic and Economic Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation, discusses how President-elect Obama can keep his campaign pledge of fiscal discipline and the need to make tough choices about government spending.
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. He has discussed budget policy on NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and C-SPAN. He also participates in the bipartisan “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour,” which holds town hall meetings across America focusing on the looming crisis in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Dissecting the Myths
The data contradict many popular myths about federal tax cuts and the rapidly expanding federal deficit.
Myth #1: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts wiped out the $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002–2011.
Fact: They caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits.
The budget surplus peaked at $236 billion in 2000. However, Senator John Kerry (D–MA), among others, has criticized President George W. Bush for having “taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see.”[1] The critics have pointed specifically to the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 as the leading creator of deficits. However, the numbers tell a different story.
First, the $5.6 trillion surplus never actually existed. It represents the cumulative 2002–2011 budget surplus projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in early 2001. Instead, the United States is now set to run a $6.1 trillion deficit for 2002–2011—a swing of $11.7 trillion. The surplus projection itself was completely unrealistic. It assumed that the late-1990s economic and stock market bubbles would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, and no natural disasters. It also assumed that discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP).
It is possible to diagnose the specific causes of the lost surplus. Since the 2001 budget surplus projection, the CBO has published 28 baseline updates. Each update specified the causes of the deteriorating surplus or expanding deficit since the previous update. Combined, the 28 updates identify the causes of the $11.7 trillion swing. As Chart 1 shows, these causes are:
Economic and technical revisions ($3.8 trillion or 33 percent of the swing). Most of these arose from CBO’s early 2001 budget projections understandably not anticipating two recessions and two major stock market corrections over the decade.
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts ($1.7 trillion or 14 percent). These tax cuts receive most of the blame for the lost surplus, but are responsible for just one-seventh of it.[2] And the tax cuts for “the rich”—those earning more than $250,000 annually—account for just 4 percent of the saving.
The 2009 stimulus ($0.7 trillion or 6 percent). The stimulus plays a significant role in the 2009 through 2011 budget deficits, but a small role in the overall deficits over the decade.
Other new spending ($3.7 trillion or 32 percent). Defense spending accounts for $2 trillion, other discretionary spending for $700 billion, and new entitlement spending for $1 trillion. The largest entitlement expansions came from the new Medicare drug entitlement, financial bailouts, farm subsidies, and refundable tax credits.[3]
New net interest costs ($1.4 trillion or 12 percent). Instead of the federal government paying off the entire national debt by 2009 as the CBO had projected in 2001, rising debt meant steeply rising net interest costs.
Other tax cuts ($0.4 trillion or 3 percent). This includes the 2008 tax rebates, annual tax extension packages, and the patches to the alternative minimum tax (AMT).[4]
Japanese authorities have established a temporary radiation cleaning shelter in Nihonmatsu, Fukushima Prefecture. Japan’s Emperor Akihito has delivereda rare address to a jittery nation in dread of nuclear catastrophe as millions struggled in desperate conditions after quake and tsunami disasters.«
Brian Riedl Heritage Foundation on Freedom and Prosperity Radio 8-28-10.wmv
Washed away: Where there was once a coastline populated with homes and factories, powerful waves triggered by the tsunami devour anything in their path. Only a scattering trees remain
This morning I woke up to horrible news of the earthquake in Japan.
March 11 (Bloomberg) — Japan was struck by its strongest earthquake in at least a century, an 8.9-magnitude temblor that shook buildings across Tokyo and unleashed a tsunami as high as 10 meters, engulfing towns along the northern coast. At least 26 people were killed by the 33-foot wave and many are missing, according to state broadcaster NHK Television. Bloomberg’s Mike Firn reports. (Source: Bloomberg)
I remember back in December of 2004 when the huge tsunami hit Thailand, and I read about it in the newspaper. Little did I know that the Chinise supplier that provides us with Mopbuckets was vacationing there at the time. He had gone down to the beach and the day looked so nice that decided to rent a boat. Therefore, he went back to his hotel room to get the money and make the phone call. Then he heard a crashing sound and water started to flow through his hotel window, and he was on the 4th floor. Communications were cut off and his factory assumed he had been killed.
The Democrats’ talking points center on framing the tax cuts as the “Bush tax cuts.” In their world anything associated with former President George W. Bush is automatically bad. Suddenly these “Bush tax cuts” are to blame for all things wrong with the economy, particularly the deficit. They claim that “extending the Bush tax cuts” will skyrocket the deficit and would be fiscally irresponsible.
Before coming to Heritage in 2001, Riedl worked for then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, former Rep. Mark Green (R-WI)., and the Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly. Riedl holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and political science from the University of Wisconsin, and a master’s degree in public affairs from Princeton University.
The surging budget deficit will likely dominate the national economic debate for years to come. Even after the recession ends, persistent trillion-dollar deficits are projected to double the national debt by the end of the decade. In the absence of reform, the financial markets will eventually respond by withdrawing capital, pushing up interest rates, and demanding immediate budget reforms—much like Greece is currently experiencing.
Putting the federal budget on a sustainable path will require drastic reforms. Balancing the budget by 2020 would require either eliminating one-third of all spending, raising taxes by 50 percent, or a combination of the two. This enormous budget constraint will set the framework for all budgeting decisions—from taxes to health care, from education to Social Security.
Finding a solution to growing deficits requires first correctly diagnosing their cause. Both recent and future budget deficits have been blamed largely on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and to a lesser extent on the war on terrorism, but the data contradict these myths. In reality, spending is almost exclusively the problem:
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were responsible for just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002–2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit. The vast majority of the shift was due to higher spending and slower-than-projected economic growth.
President Barack Obama’s assertion that most future deficits will result from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Medicare drug entitlement is based on faulty methodology, but is still wrong even using that methodology.
Above-average spending, not below-average revenues, accounts for 92 percent of rising budget deficits by 2014 and 100 percent by 2017.
Nearly all rising spending will occur in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and net interest payments.
Deficit reduction efforts should focus on the source of the problem: rising entitlement spending. Any attempt to split the difference between broad-based tax hikes and spending cuts should be rejected outright as a false solution.
The video clip is really an answer to Elwood from the Arkansas Times comment section that answers his statement that deficits don’t matter and we should not be worried about our continued out of control spending. Here are Elwood’s own words:
If you’ve heard enough “THE SKY IS FALLING” here’s some sensible writing on the subject “We’re broke! We’re broke!” Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday. “We’re broke in this state,” Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said a few days ago. “New Jersey’s broke,” Gov. Chris Christie has said repeatedly. The United States faces a “looming bankruptcy,” Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. It’s all obfuscating nonsense, of course, a scare tactic employed for political ends. A country with a deficit is not necessarily any more “broke” than a family with a mortgage or a college loan.
January 4th, 2010
Interest. Or to be more precise, interest payments. That, Heritage Senior Fellow J.D. Foster explains, is the biggest reason why Americans should be very concerned with the trillions of dollars in debt our federal government is piling up in Washington. Watch:And the situation is only going to get worse under President Barack Obamas budget. Heritage Foundation fellow Brian Riedl reports: Federal spending (which has remained around 20 percent of economy since the 1950s) would surpass 28 percent of economy by 2019. Federal spending per household would rise from $25,000 per household in 2008 to more than $37,000 per household by 2019. This spending would drive a permanent, unprecedented increase in the national debt. After borrowing just under $6 trillion from 1789 through 2008 (plus nearly $2 trillion in 2009), Washington would borrow $13 trillion over the next decadenearly $100,000 for every household. By 2019, annual budget deficits would approach $2 trillion and push the public debt to nearly 100 percent of the economy. Merely paying the interest on this debt would soon cost taxpayers $1 trillion annually, and spending and deficits would continue to rise.