Category Archives: Taxes

The Estate Tax Discourages Savings and Investment

January 13, 2011 – 12:14 am

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com

Series on Estate Tax Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Dumas, Brummett, and Brantley in love with Estate Tax

January 12, 2011 – 2:51 am

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com

Series on Estate Tax: Part 1

The estate tax is an immoral tax because it is really a death tax. ‘The Blessing of Enough’ author Rabbi Shmuley Boteach argues the estate tax is immoral.

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

Liberals like Ernest Dumas, Max Brantley, and John Brummett all love the estate tax. It had its origin about 100 years ago in the USA. In 1910, Teddy Roosevelt summed up his feelings. “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used,” Roosevelt said. “It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community…. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”

In 1916 Congress followed Roosevelt’s earlier wishes and  tried to soak the rich with the estate tax in order to pay for World War I. Actually the estate tax revenues were over 5% of the total revenues gathered by the USA back then. However, I truly believe it is an immoral and stupid tax. It is a tax on capital  and destroys jobs.and should be rejected for many other reasons. In the next few days I will look at several of these solid reasons.
In this series on the Estate Tax I will be quoting portions of the article “The Economic Case Against the Death Tax,” (Heritage Foundation, July 20, 2010) by Curtis S. Dubay. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

_________________________________________

Today I am profiling St lawmaker Allen Kerr.

State Representative Allen Kerr didn’t get his first peek at running a business—or government—after he won his first seat in office. No, it started when he took his first stand on the top of an overturned milk crate in 1968. That crate served as his stepstool to the cash register at his father’s Jacksonville grocery store.

From that perch he came to know that, like himself, his customers worked hard for their money and cared how they spent it. He learned about watching numbers carefully, whether it was a scrolling grocery store register tape, a spreadsheet that showed something wasn’t quite right in Pulaski’s county government, or double-dipping by elected officials. Allen eye’s showed a knack for funny math.

As a lifelong Pulaski County resident, a graduate from the Pulaski County school system, and a now a businessman in West Little Rock, Allen knows living, studying, working, and worshiping in Arkansas. He, his wife, Marliese, and his family attend Highland Valley United Methodist Church in West Little Rock.

For the past 26 years, Allen and Marliese have managed their successful business in their office at 1429 Merrill Drive in West Little Rock. During this time, the Allen Kerr Insurance agency has grown to be one of the largest insurance and financial services agencies in Arkansas for Farmers Insurance Group. Just as Allen watched over his customers at his father’s grocery store, he and Marliese now protect the property and financial futures for over 4000 customers and 500 million dollars in assets. For twelve consecutive years his agency has won the President’s Council award, the highest honor for Farmers Insurance Group.

More recently, Allen’s deep-rooted integrity and financial insight have served the public good for citizens of Pulaski County and Arkansas. In Pulaski County, he noticed something missing from the spreadsheets in the county’s Quorum Court. It was money—and lots of it. Turns out that Allen’s line of questioning revealed a scheme to steal taxpayer money, deplete the county reserve fund, and put Pulaski County in such a bad financial position it was forced to close portions of the county jail. He didn’t stand for five-finger discounts in his father’s grocery store, and he didn’t stand for it in the county checkbook, either. Just two months into his first political office, he uncovered massive fraud and wrote a blueprint to restore trust and financial stability to Pulaski County’s budget of $100 million.

During this first term in office, Allen was elected in a bi-partisan vote to become the budget chair for the quorum court. He turned the public’s attention to budget decisions, worked with others to save county dollars, and reallocated that money to open more jail beds, which in turn helped reduce the catch-and-release prison problem in Pulaski County.  He finished his second year in office after being re-elected as the budget chair.

After talking with voters, he decided to seek the Arkansas State House seat for District 32, to which he was elected in November 2008, replacing a term-limited Sid Rosenbaum. In his first session, Allen worked on bills to make Arkansas a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Meeting commitments he made as a candidate, he proposed a bill to increase the daily reimbursement amount counties receive from the state for holding inmates in their facilities. As it is, the state finds it cheaper to let prisoners languish in county jails rather than move them to state penitentiaries. The proposed reimbursement structure prompts the state to assume their responsibility and lighten the load of frequently overburdened, underfunded county jails. This bill was introduced in March of 2009 and is being studied by the City, County and Local Affairs Committee. In the meantime, Allen works to gain support for this bill, make room for more inmates, and lock down the statewide catch-and-release problem completely.

Another effort by Kerr to return taxpayer dollars to their right and proper use is the investigation into and exposure of double-dipping by some elected county officials in Arkansas. As it turns out, some entrusted by voters have been quietly “retiring” after their winning their unopposed primary elections—giving no notice to the public; waiting a 90-day period—some of them still functioning in their elected role; and then applying for retirement benefits—which they accrue at twice the rate of regular state employees. Once the benefits begin, these double-dippers quietly declare themselves “rehired” for their current position—but they take no new oath of office.

The public is none the wiser, but coffers are all the poorer, paying out a salary and retirement benefits at the same time. The officials claim refuge under a law enacted to keep the best state employees for the long term. The Attorney General, however, declared the practice illegal in his opinion delivered June 2. Kerr is working to draft bills to close these alleged loopholes, expose the current problems, and safeguard the public trust from here on out.

In the future, Allen Kerr will continue to speak as a voice for common sense in Arkansas government. He holds himself accountable first, then others, and opens the door to others who want to do the same. He says “Government has to be responsive and open to voters. All levels of government have lost voters’ trust. That can be regained only by doing the right thing.”

Knowing the right thing is choosing priority over popularity, Allen welcomes public inquiry. “The public has a right to know how their government business is conducted. Public servants have to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards and be open to public scrutiny.”

As he seeks re-election to the Arkansas House of Representatives, he invites you investigate his record and see if security, priority, and integrity win your vote.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Mark Pryor: We can balance budget in 10 or 20 yrs

January 4, 2011 – 2:06 am

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 around. We won’t do it overnight, but we get it turned around and in the next 10 or 20 years we will get back to a balanced budget.” 

Liberals do not want you to know this secret: The budget would be balanced in 2016 if the current levels of spending were frozen, and the budget would be balanced in 2017 if a growth of 1% in federal spending was allowed.

Pryor and other liberals do not want to make the hard choices concerning the spending cuts that need to be made. Privatizing Social Security would have to be back on the table for instance.
Dan Mitchell from the Cato Institute elaborates:
Our fiscal policy goal should be smaller government, but here’s a video for folks who think that balancing the budget should be the main objective.

The main message is that restraining the growth of government is the right way to get rid of red ink, so there is no conflict between advocates of limited government and supporters of fiscal balance.

More specifically, the video shows that it is possible to quickly balance the budget while also making all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent and protecting taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax. All these good things can happen if politicians simply limit annual spending growth to 2 percent each year. And they’ll happen even faster if spending grows at an even slower rate.

This debunks the statist argument that there is no choice but to raise taxes.

_______________________________________________________

I am profiling State Lawmaker Nate Bell today.

Married to
Phyllis Reinhard Bell
Political Views:
Conservative
Religious Views:
Christ follower
Favorite Quotations:
“The budget should be balanced, the treasury refilled, public debt reduced, the arrogance of officialdom tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt.”
~Cicero 63 BC 

He who thinks he knows it all proves how little he knows.
Anonymous

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” ….
John Stuart Mill.

* You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
* You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.
-found in an essay about Abraham Lincoln

-Anything worth doing is worth catching hell for.
Earl Warren

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

‘Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.’

‘The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

‘The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.’

‘Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. Was too strong.’

‘I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.’

‘The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.’

‘Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.’

‘The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.’

‘It has been said that politics is the world’s second oldest profession. I’ve come to believe that it bears a striking resemblance to the first’
Ronald Reagan

About Me:
Poultry Farmer and small businessperson from Mena who wants to continue my service to the community by representing District 22 in the Arkansas legislature.
Gender:
Male
Click on people’s faces in the photo to tag them.
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute | Comments (0)

Dumas:Lowering Capital Gains Tax Bad Idea

January 3, 2011 – 5:16 am

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com


This video clip gives 6 reasons why the Capital Gains Tax should be abolished

Ernest Dumas in his article “Tax work not wealth,” (Arkansas Times, Nov 25, 2010) asserts, “The (capital gains) tax rate was raised in 1976 under President Gerald Ford and economic growth accelerated. President Jimmy Carter cut the top rate from 39 percent to 28 percent in 1978 and economic growth slowed. President Reagan’s sweeping tax cuts in 1981 lowered the top capital gains rate again to 20 percent, which was followed by the deepest recession since the 1930s. Needing to rein in the growing deficit, Reagan restored the 28 percent rate on capital gains in the tax reform act of 1986 and the economy and hiring sharply expanded over the next two years.”

Sounds like disaster occurred after Bush lowered the capital gains tax. Let’s look at the facts.

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

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

As previously stated, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to the policy. Investors have been shown to be the most sensitive to tax policy, because capital gains tax cuts encourage enough new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion. Past capital gains tax cuts have shown similar results.

By encouraging investment, lower capital gains taxes increase funding for the technologies, businesses, ideas, and projects that make workers and the economy more productive. Such investment is vital for long-term economic growth.

Because investors are tax-sensitive, high capital gains tax rates are not only bad economic policy, but also bad budget policy.

_____________________________________________

I have been profiling State Lawmakers and today is David Meeks. [16680_low.jpg]

About David Meeks

David has a rich Arkansas heritage. He is proud of the fact his mom, grandfather, and great grandmother were all born right here in Arkansas. David himself grew up near Springhill and attended school in Greenbrier. During his junior year in high school, his dad got a job which moved them to Florida. Even though he moved away, he never forgot his Arkansas upbringing and always considered Greenbrier to be his hometown.

Shortly after graduation from high school in 1990, David joined the Army and for the next 5 years proudly served his country. He spent a year in South Korea in 1991. After the year-long deployment in South Korea, he went to Ft. Drum, NY. During his time at Ft. Drum, NY, David took part in the Hurricane Andrew, Somalia, and Haiti Humanitarian Relief efforts.

After David received an honorable discharge from the Army in 1995, he attended college where he earned a Bachelor�s degree in Pastoral Ministries. While attending college, he taught and mentored children which is something he continues to do to this day.

After college, David took a position as an associate pastor and then worked for an inner-city charter school in Jacksonville, FL. During his time at the school, he worked with middle school children to overcome a myriad of problems and become successful high school students.

In 2003, David took a job working as a Customer Service agent with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. It was there he got an insight to the problems that our healthcare industry faced. Because of his hard work and leadership skills, David was promoted to work as a project manger. As a project manager, he was able to help improve business processes saving the company time and money.

Even during this time away from Arkansas, David would come back and visit often with his grandparents and relatives who lived in Faulkner County.

He eventually had the opportunity to return to Arkansas in 2008. It was a great decision as shortly after he moved back, he met his future wife, Naomi. They were married at Bible Baptist Church on February 14th, 2009. They currently reside in Conway and attend Bible Baptist Church. They are both active in the Children�s ministry.

CONSERVATIVE VALUES. CONSERVATIVE VISION.

The Better Arkansas Plan

1) Create Jobs by Cutting Taxes

2) Curb Spending and Government Growth

3) Protect States Rights

For more details and to see where David stands on the issues please visit the issues page.

Endorsements:

  • Arkansas Right to Life
  • NRA
  • Police Benevolent Association
  • State Senator Gilbert Baker
  • Dr Chuck Harding, Fmr Deputy Commander for Diplomatic Security Service, US State Department
    • By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute | Comments (0)

    Dumas:Federal Taxes are down now

    December 31, 2010 – 4:58 pm

    HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

    W. Kurt Hauser comments on Federal Taxes
    (You will notice that today is the third time a state lawmaker has been profiled on this website. I have
    taking the time to look this info up on the web and then post it. If any lawmaker from Arkansas would be
    kind enough to just go ahead and email me the info then I would appreciate it. My
    email is lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com)
    Ernest Dumas in his article “Budget Balancing,” (Arkansas Times, Nov 18, 2010) asserts “the public has been led to believe that their taxes have gone up and up and up, when the opposite is true, at least with federal income taxes.” Dumas would have us believe that our federal taxes are low. However, the fact is federal tax revenue is up now as compared to GDP after the Bush Tax cuts were put into affect.
    I am responding to these liberal assertions with a portion from an article published January 29, 2007 called, “Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts” by Brian Riedl. Riedl is the Grover Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation and Riedl’s budget research has been featured in front-page stories and editorials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.
    Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
    Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
    Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.The historical averages range between 17.9 percent and 18.3 percent of GDP, depending on the time horizon. The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965-1967. Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.
    Some critics of President George W. Bush’s tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the historical average yet assert that revenues are historically low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax policies are partly responsible for that economic expansion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of:
    • 18.4 percent of GDP in 1987,
    • 18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and
    • 18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.

    I am profiling State Lawmakers and today is Jake Files of Ft Smith.

    I am Jake Files, a devoted husband, loving father, common sense conservative, and small business owner.  I have a passion for politics because I honestly believe we can still make a difference, and it is time we elected people who will stand with us and for us.  One of my favorite quotes is “The only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)  We live in a time where our most basic freedoms are being challenged, and I believe we must stand together and fight.  The time is now.

    FAITH & FAMILY

    My faith is the catalyst for everything I do, and my family is the backbone of who I am.  Michaela (Mitchell) and I have been married since 1998, and we have 3 little girls we are raising the best way we know how!  Kate is a 1st grader at Immaculate Conception, Liz is in preschool at Hobson/First Presbyterian, and Bella is still in diapers at home with mom.  Michaela is a RN and has made the choice to stay at home with them and help run our household…no easy task!  We attend Eastside Baptist Church, where I sing and play guitar in the Worship Band, coach little league baseball, and help in the children’s choir.

    EDUCATION

    I attended Ouachita Baptist University on a track scholarship, and I graduated Cum Laude from Arkansas State through the University Center at UA-Fort Smith (then Westark College) with a bachelors in Accounting.  My mom and sister are both teachers, and I have a tremendous respect for not only education, but also the role education plays in the opportunities we have in life.

    The students in this generation will be the leaders of the next generation.  Our future literally depends on them and the education they receive.  WIth such a tremendous amount of our resources dedicated to education, we must insist that we are getting the best return possible in terms of educated young people who understand themselves and the world around them.

    BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

    As a 14 year old paperboy for the Southwest Times Record, I learned the value of a dollar, and more importantly, how quickly it went.  After graduating from college, I accepted a position with Baldor Electric Company as part of the management team for their new flagship plant in Ozark, Arkansas.  What a great company to work for and learn about excellence.  It was there that I learned about manufacturing and what a vital role in plays in our economy and this region.

    With a heart for young people, I moved to Fort Smith Christian School, where I later served as President and Superintendent of the Pre-K-12 accredited institution.  While serving in that capacity, I was able to work with educators to shape curriculum and learn what was most important to the educational process.  I also learned that education was not just about what was taught in the classroom, but that the investment we make in the lives of children pays dividends forever.

    After seven years at FSC, I went to work for ERC Properties in Real Estate Development and grew immensely.  I was able to work on and close several multi-million dollar deals, and I also obtained my Real Estate License during this time and became a Realtor.  While working in this corporate environment, my entrepreneurial spirit pushed me to look at starting my own business.

    In 2006, with much prayer and determination, Michaela and I ventured with two partners into the business we currently own and operate, which is a General Construction Firm and Real Estate Development company.  We develop, build, own, and manage real estate and have been taught great lessons by making a payroll every week and seeing the demands on business owners as insurance and taxes threaten to limit our ability to make money, and in some cases, keep our doors open.

    I can assure you that I can identify with you and will work hard to be a pro-business Senator who understands what you go through on a daily basis.

    POLITICAL EXPERIENCE

    Jake was elected to the House of Representatives in 1998, when he successfully won the primary and general election at the age of 26.  He served two terms without being defeated, and he is very proud of his past legislative accomplishments.  He was a leader and instrumental in the bill that transitioned Westark College to the University of Arkansas-Fort Smith, and he also worked hard to effectively represent Fort Smith in the Legislature while serving his terms.  He announced for this state Senate position in 2002, but because of job obligations, he decided not to file for the office at that time.  Since that time, he has started his own company to enable him to set his own schedule more freely and not be dictated by corporate obligations.

    In Jake’s last legislative session, he was presented several awards by groups who appreciated his dedication, leadership, and work, and he also passed some substantial legislation.  One of his greatest achievements was borne from a tragic accident that killed a close family friend.  Determined to make something positive from this, Jake vigilantly fought for tougher safety seat laws and was successful in raising the requirement for children to be in safety seats and in seatbelts.  Many lives have been saved since this legislation became law, and countless others will be saved in the future.

    Jake also authored and led the fight to protect Arkansas school children against sexual predators with the “Arkansas School Children Protection Act” which kept our children safer by banning anyone convicted of a sexual offense from working in ANY capacity in a school.

    He and then Senator Gunner Delay worked together to pass and fund the Tennis Center at Creekmore Park so that everyone could be afforded the opportunity to play in a first class park and facility.  Jake also was able to secure funding for the Health Science building at Westark College which was a highlight with then Chancellor Joel Stubblefield.  He worked with the legislative delegation in the early stages of Fort Chaffee being transitioned to the Trust and was able to help in the funding of $2 million dollars to the Trust as well.

    Jake’s greatest satisfaction comes from being able to serve his constituents and help them get problems solved while interacting with governmental agencies.  “Some of my best memories are not of seeing things happen in Little Rock, but hearing from people that I have been able to help find resolution with state government.  To me, that is the essence of public service.  Making a difference for someone every day,” added Files.

    On May 18th, 2010, Jake won the Republican Primary with 40% of the vote over opponents Frank Glidewell and Jim Medley.  Because no one received 50% of the vote, a Run-off between Jake Files and Frank Glidewell ensued.  Files was victorious with nearly 58% of the vote on June 8th, 2010.  There was no Democrat to file for the position, so Files will be the next Senator from Fort Smith on January 1, 2011 in District 13.

    By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

    Lynch: Raise Tax rates to get more $

    December 29, 2010 – 12:40 am

    HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

    Dan Mitchell of Cato Institute on income taxes

    In his article “Sizing up the new year,” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, December 27, 2010), Pat Lynch asserts,” Just so you understand, the federal deficit is somewhere just north of $13 trillion and the wealthiest taxpayers will not be even slightly inconvenienced as we pay down the national debt… Since the rich folks have been granted favored status by the continued Bush tax cuts and there is nothing to offset the revenue loss, slashing domestic spending is the preferred conservative option. Sooner or later, somebody is going to have to go after some real money.
    The poor and elderly will pay off the budget shortfall.”

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

    Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
    Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

    Many of those who desire additional tax revenues regularly call on Congress to raise tax rates, but tax revenues are a function of two variables: tax rates and the tax base. The tax base typically moves in the opposite direction of the tax rate, partially negating the revenue impact of tax rate changes. There is little correlation between tax rates and tax revenues. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a percent of GDP.

    Despite major fluctuations in income tax rates, long-term tax revenues have grown at almost exactly the same rate as GDP, remaining between 17 percent and 20 percent of GDP for 46 of the past 50 years. The top marginal income tax rate topped 90 percent during the 1950s and that revenues averaged 17.2 percent of GDP. By the 1990s, the top marginal income tax rate averaged just 36 percent, and tax revenues averaged 18.3 percent of GDP. Regardless of the tax rate, tax revenues have almost always come in at approximately 18 percent of GDP (Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, pp. 25–26, Table 1.3, and Internal Revenue Service, “U.S. Individual Income Tax: Personal Exemptions and Lowest and Highest Bracket Tax Rates, and Tax Base for Regular Tax, Tax Years 1913– 2005,” at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histaba.pdf {January 16, 2007}).

    Since revenues move with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the GDP. This means that pro-growth policies such as low marginal tax rates (especially on work, savings, and investment), restrained federal spending, minimal regulation, and free trade would raise more tax revenues than would be raised by self-defeating tax increases. America cannot substantially increase tax revenue with policies that reduce national income.

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

    Hillary Clinton :Take from Rich and give to Poor

    December 22, 2010 – 9:44 pm

    HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

    Back in 2004 at a democratic fundraiser, Senator Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters – some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend – to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.


    “Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

    In April of 2010 President Obama went off the teleprompter in his speech to a Quincy, Illinois audience about Wall Street reform and noted, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

    In Milton Friedman’s series FREE TO CHOOSE there is an episode called, “Created Equal.” Basically Friedman says that we have equality before God because we are human beings with dignity. Also in the USA we all have equality of rights under the law. However, there are those who want to try to make the equality of outcome an issue and that has always been met with disastrous consequences.

    This is how the late comedian Steve Allen put it in the introduction to the 30 minute episode by Milton Friedman:

    Hello there, as they used to say in television. I am Steve Allen. If you don’t know that, it is not going to be a big deal anyway. Millions of people are willing to spend money to be entertained. You spend a few dollars on a record, a theater concert ticket, and Michael Jackson becomes a millionaire. I think that is a nice arrangement for you as well as for Michael Jackson, and for me too. Of course, you also have some special talents, whatever the job. If you do it well, you make life better for yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

    With a free market, our income is dependent on how much training we might have had, how well we do our job, and the scarcity of what we have to offer. Lucky for me there weren’t too many other Steve Allens around. But equal opportunity __ that is the American dream. That is a market economy as Milton Friedman explained earlier in the series.

    Over the years I have asked Milton for advice in understanding a number of aspects involved in economics and politics. He is a great teacher and, of course, a defender of freedom and individual rights. On the other hand, there are people who think Michael Jackson and others who earn astronomical incomes, should be prevented from doing so. They think it would be better off if income/wealth were shared, more or less, evenly. As a bare, abstract idea, there is something appealing about that. Michael obviously doesn’t need to earn fifty or one hundred million a year, and there are certainly those who have practically no money at all. So, as I say, there have been philosophers over the centuries who have tried to diminish poverty by limiting the income at the top end of the scale. The problem with that admittedly charming idea is that it has never worked.

    The Pilgrims tried a form of socialism over 300 years ago. Unfortunately for their fair minded plans, they prospered only after they were allowed to keep for themselves all the food they grew, and to use it or sell it as they saw fit.

    Now to turn back the clock to the early days of the communist revolution in Russia, the basic aim again was the share the wealth. But again it didn’t work. It had to be enforced with harsh laws, machine guns and barbed wire. In terms of pure economics, it was a failure. The end result was near poverty for all.

    So what human kind has been so long struggling to achieve is a fair system that will permit those with special gifts of abilities to accumulate a good deal of money without, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the sufferings of the poor. No system can work if there isn’t an accumulation of wealth. It just happens that the free market system is better in that regard that the alternatives. In the ongoing debate on this issue, it is by no means necessary to argue that the free market system is perfect. It isn’t. It is simply better than the other alternatives because it is the system that provides us many more choices, certainly much more freedom, and continued prosperity.

    (Steve Allen in this 9 minute video introduces Milton Friedman’s episode “Created Equal”)

    _____________________________________________________

    I would like to profile some State Legislators and I wanted to start off with my good friend Ann Clemmer who represents Bryant so well. Jill and I have sent our 4 kids to Bryant schools. Ann has sent her three daughters through the Bryant Schools  and I have had a chance to watch her up close and she is a lady of her word. (Below taken from Ann Clemmer’s facebook page)

    State Representative Ann Clemmer District 29
    First elected 2008 and re-elected 2010.

    Hometown:
    Bryant
    Political Views:
    Conservative
    Religious Views:
    Christian
    Activities:
    Gardening, reading, watching Bryant Hornet Sports,
    Interests:
    politics and faith issues and the family I am blessed to be a part of.
    Favorite Music:
    pop and rock oldies, but I listen to country, and current pop, christian music.
    Favorite Movies:
    When Harry Met Sally, Schindler’s List, Remember the Titans, Cinderella Man, Lord of the Rings Trilogy,
    Favorite Books:
    Angela’s Ashes, ‘Tis, Teacher Man,
    Favorite TV Shows:
    That 70s Show, Gilmore Girls, West Wing, Everybody Loves Raymond
    Favorite Quotations:
    “all that is necessary for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing” Edmund Burke
    “to whom much is given, much is required” Luke 12:48
    About Me:
    After all these years of teaching government, I finally decided to run for office. I can no longer sit on the sidelines and offer commentary, without stepping up to offer myself to the voters as a candidate for office. I’m a wife to a wonderful husband, mother of three great and almost grown daughters. I was very happy with my life before deciding to enter politics as a candidate, but especially with term limits in the state legislature, more qualified people need to get out of their comfort zones to make our state a better place for the next generation.

    Work Info

    Employer:
    University of Arkansas at Little Rock
    Position:
    Instructor
    Time Period:
    August 1992 to present
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Description:
    I am a member of a fantastic department where going into the office is a treat everyday. I am sad to be losing a dear colleague to a school closer to his home. We will miss you next year, Bill.

    Education Info

    Grad School:
    College:
    High School:
    By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Hillary Clinton, Milton Friedman | Comments (0)

    Brummett: Jack up Taxes of Wealthy to reduce Deficit

    December 18, 2010 – 5:20 am

    Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Dumas: Bush Tax Cuts Hurt Economy

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

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

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

    Bill Clinton: Bush Tax Cuts too Big!!!

    December 16, 2010 – 4:17 am

    (Funny video about the Democrats who love to blame Bush)

    HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

    Currently I am reading “My Life” by Bill Clinton, and I must say that I am really getting into it. I did take notice of page 870 since President Clinton was talking about the Bush Tax Cuts which currently were due to expire on December 31, 2010. The book “My Life” was finished in  2004, so President Clinton had the advantage of commenting on these tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and 2003. They were the same across the board tax cuts that the Republicans proposed to him all during his presidency and this is what he thought of them:

    “I vetoed the Republican tax cut because it was “too big, too bloated,” and put too great a burden on America’s economy. Under the budget rules, the bill would have forced large cuts on education, health care, and environmental protection. It would have prevented us from extending the Social Security trust funds, & from adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. We were going to have a surplus this year of about $100 billion, but the proposed GOP tax cut would cost nearly $1 trillion over a decade.”

    You got to give President Bill Clinton a lot of credit for taking the bull by the horns and working to find the middle ground with the Republicans after the 1994 elections. The result was three surplus budgets from 1998 to 2001.

    Were the Bush Tax Cuts too big? Were they the cause of later budget deficits? Many liberal Democrats besides President Clinton have made this same assertion over and over.

    NOTICE TO LIBERALS: The problem was run away federal spending  and not the Bush Tax Cuts. Take a look at the historical evidence and you will see that the revenue actually went up during the years in question.

    I am responding to this assertion with a portion from an article published January 29, 2007 called, “Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts” by Brian Riedl.

    Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
    Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

    Critics tirelessly contend that America’s swing from budget surpluses in 1998-2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the “irresponsible” Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.

    The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre-tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit-a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.

    Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated. By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.
    The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre-tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.
    The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy’s performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue.
    By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Bill Clinton | Comments (0)