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 done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Following several “expansion budgets,” President Bush has moved the debate in a more responsible direction by proposing a “belt-tightening budget” that asks most agencies to accept a near-freeze in discretionary spending. But would most families trying to cut costs simply freeze each expenditure equally? Or would they fully fund priorities like food, the mortgage payment, and insurance while completely eliminating unaffordable luxuries such as vacations and entertainment?
Most families would choose this “priority budget” over a “belt-tightening budget,” and so should government. A priority budget would ask lawmakers to fully fund a few top priorities, such as defense, homeland security, and a few domestic programs, and then terminate such unaffordable luxuries as the approximately $60 billion in corporate welfare spending; the $20 billion pork-project budget; $100 billion (at least) in waste, fraud, and abuse; and hundreds of ineffective, outdated, and unnecessary programs.
Belt-tightening budgets are certainly preferable to the expansion budgets of the past few years. However, reducing a program’s funding without correspondingly adjusting its structure, goals, and duties can lead to ineffective government. Better a few vital activities performed well than a multitude of activities performed poorly.
President Bush proposes terminating 65 programs at a savings of $4.9 billion. (See Appendix 1.) Although a step in the right direction, these low-priority terminations represent only 0.2 percent of all federal spending. By contrast, a priority budget would:
Fully fund a limited number of high-priority spending categories, such as defense and homeland security;
Terminate entire categories of lower-priority programs, such as corporate welfare;
Institute a moratorium on pork projects;
Limit non-security spending increases to programs that pass their audits; and
Substantially reform programs growing at unsustainable rates, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Time to be Bold
Congress last attempted to enact a priority budget in 1995 and 1996, when the 104th Congress terminated several programs whose irrelevance was proven by how quickly they were forgotten. But Congress then committed several strategic errors, such as overreaching and shutting down the federal government in 1995. After President Bill Clinton deftly exploited these mistakes, budget cutters overreacted to Clinton’s tactics by completely abandoning the mission of smaller government. By 1998, federal spending was growing once again as a paralyzed Congress decided that budget confrontations with the Clinton White House could never be won and should be avoided at all costs.
In 2004, national defense, homeland security, and entitlement challenges make spending reform more important than ever. It is time to step back and think about the role of government, the obligations of the private sector, and the delineation between federal and state responsibilities. For those interested in lean, effective government with low taxes, the following are 10 guidelines for getting spending under control.
Britain’s Prince William, center left, and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, center right, pose for a photograph with, clockwise from bottom right, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Eliza Lopes, Grace van Cutsem, Lady Louise Windsor, Tom Pettifer, and William Lowther-Pinkerton in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace, following their wedding at Westminster Abbey, London, on Friday, April 29, 2011 in this photo provided by Clarence House on Saturday, April 30, 2011. (Hugo Burnand, Clarence House/AP Photo)
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
I read an article recently that was very helpful on this subject. “The Seven Myths of Cohabitation,” by Patrick & Dwaina Six is an article that I will be sharing in this series the next few days. Here is the fifth portion:
Another myth is: “Our children will be better off.” Not true! The safest place for children is in a home where their parents are married to each other. Abuse rates are highest among children with cohabitating parents. The best probability for experiencing a great relationship and providing a nurturing environment for children occurs within the commitment of marriage. Most children worry at some time in their life about their parents getting a divorce. They need the reassurance that their parents love each other and are committed to the marriage and family. The underlying lack of commitment in a cohabitating relationship lends itself, by its nature, to feeding this insecurity in children.
Chip Ingram – How to Diffuse Conflict in Your Marriage (pt 5)
Recently I’ve shared with you several brief video messages about how to resolve conflict. This is such an essential issue that so many of us would rather avoid! The truth is that unresolved conflict creates stress and often results in unhealthy and damaging sin patterns. This quick message will give you some practical ways to approach and diffuse conflict that can help break the cycle. If you or someone you know would like to learn more on this subject, I encourage you to download the full message for free: http://www.venturechristian.org/files/sermons2/t032011.mp3
Benefits of Attending a Weekend to Remember
April
Bridesmaids and page boys
Philippa Middleton arrives at Westminster Abbey with the bridesmaids and page boys ahead of the wedding service between Prince William and Catherine Middleton, 29 April 2011
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 done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:
As lawmakers work to bring federal spending under control, they should avoid the following common traps:
Expecting an economic boom to balance the budget. While recent tax cuts will likely aid economic growth and bring in new tax revenues, it is unrealistic to expect tax revenues to grow at the 9 percent annual rate necessary to balance the budget by 2014 under current spending trends. Balancing the budget requires spending restraint.
Increasing spending through accounting gimmicks. Lawmakers tried to hide the 2004 spending increases by shifting budget authority between years, which is Congress’s equivalent of backdating its checks. These accounting gimmicks could not cover up the 9 percent increase in projected discretionary outlays for 2004. Lawmakers are already discussing an innovative gimmick to increase domestic spending in 2005: funding a large domestic spending increase by taking the money out of defense, knowing that an underfunded defense budget can be remedied later by substantially adding to the President’s planned 2005 supplemental defense bill. If lawmakers insist on these gimmicks, spending could again grow rapidly.
Making only the easy spending cuts. Lawmakers often reject any spending cut that could offend someone. Yet every dollar government spends–no matter how wasteful–is received by someone who would be angry to lose these benefits. Every spending cut will offend somebody, and any easy cuts surely would have been made by now. Lawmakers who are serious about cutting spending should focus on the millions of taxpayers–both current and future–who are forced to sacrifice their financial well-being in order to fund ineffective federal program.
Federal spending has grown 62 percent faster than inflation since 2000.
Defense spending has grown 91 percent over its pre-9/11 trough, yet still remains well below the historical average as a percentage of the economy.
The expensive Medicare drug benefit played a large role in Medicare’s sharp cost increase.
Anti-poverty spending rose rapidly under President George W. Bush, and has risen again during the recession.
Unemployment spending is also up due to the recession.
Energy costs fluctuate yearly, so the rapid growth rate over 2000 is not indicative of a long-term trend.
Mortgage credit and deposit insurance costs were high in 2009 due to the financial and mortgage bailouts. The low (and occasionally negative) 2010 totals result from recipients repaying a portion of that spending.
Despite the new spending and deficits, record-low interest rates caused net interest costs to decline. Net interest spending will jump when interest rates rise back to normal levels.
I have enjoyed going through the artists referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris.” Paul is the snobby expert on impressionist art that talks about Monet at the museum but he notes that Turner was actually really the author of impressionism. Below is a biography of Turner.
By the way, I know that some of you are wondering how many posts I will have before I am finished. Right now I have plans to look at Van Gogh, Picasso, Man Ray, T.S. Elliot and several more.
(born April 23, 1775, London, Eng.—died Dec. 19, 1851, London) British landscape painter. The son of a barber, he entered the Royal Academy school in 1789. In 1802 he became a full academician and in 1807 was appointed professor of perspective. His early work was concerned with accurate depictions of places, but he soon learned from Richard Wilson to take a more poetic and imaginative approach. The Shipwreck (1805) shows his new emphasis on luminosity, atmosphere, and Romantic, dramatic subjects. After a trip to Italy in 1819, his colour became purer and more prismatic, with a general heightening of key. In later paintings, such as Sunrise, with a Boat Between Headlands(1845), architectural and natural details are sacrificed to effects of colour and light, with only the barest indication of mass. His compositions became more fluid, suggesting movement and space. In breaking down conventional formulas of representation, he anticipated French Impressionism. His immense reputation in the 19th century was due largely to John Ruskin‘s enthusiasm for his early works; 20th-century critics celebrated the abstract qualities of his late colour compositions.
Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams in Woody Allen’s movie Midnight in Paris.”
Anybody need a Cannes opener?
The French did, and Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” lifted the lid quite nicely last month. Out popped a bon-bon of a rom-com that should now charm Yankee audiences as much as the Euro-chic.
The last Allen movie to kick off France’s big annual film festival was his hilarious “Hollywood Ending” back in 2002. This Cannes opener is a bit more electric, equipped with a cameo appearance by the French first lady.
Hero of Mr. Allen’s flight of fancy at hand is frustrated Hollywood hack screenwriter Gil (Owen Wilson) — frustrated, specifically and ironically, by his huge success. What he really wants is to be a novelist, and where he really wants to live is in 1920s Paris — a time and place with which he is obsessed.
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Michael Sheen.
Rating: PG-13 for some sexual references and smoking.
The film’s stunning montage-prologue takes us ever so slowly and swooningly from the Parisian morning to its eponymous midnight hour: Gil is there on a trip with his beautiful fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams). If anybody ever needed a premarital getaway to the city of his dreams, it’s Gil — but he didn’t need the company of his in-laws-to-be-from-hell. Inez and her Tea Party parents (Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy) are there strictly for the shop-till-you-drop opportunity.
To make matters worse for Gil, they bump into Inez’s ex, Paul (Michael Sheen), a pedantic expert on everything. Wine, art, literature, Versailles, Etruscan stemware? You name it, Paul is an authority on it. There is nothing the man doesn’t know and isn’t eager to tell you about at length. And he’d be glad to read and critique Gil’s great-American-novel-in-progress.
Gil wants no one’s literary opinion except maybe Hemingway’s. But for that he’d need a vehicle that could take him back in time. Angst, and ye shall receive: Wandering around Montmartre in a drunken haze at midnight, Gil is stunned when a 1920s-something Peugeot full of retro-revelers pulls up and invites him along for an evening on the town with the vintage A-list artistes.
Then and thereafter, everybody who is/was anybody turns up — more brilliant American emigres and European geniuses than you can shake a breadstick at. Scott and Zelda (Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston) are there. So is Hemingway (the terrific Corey Stoll), at his most earnest: “Have you ever hunted?” he asks Gil. “Only for bargains,” comes the reply.
Kathy Bates dispenses instant insightful literary analysis as Gertrude Stein (a ruse is a ruse is a ruse), while Picasso broods and Adrien Brody does Dali and even the reclusive T.S. Eliot shows up — “Prufrock’s like my mantra!” gushes Gil.
As the Mr. Allen surrogate, Owen Wilson utters Gil’s guilelessly clever lines with Woodyesque cadences and an innocent wonder reminiscent of his characters in “Wedding Crashers” and “The Royal Tenenbaums.” He’s never better than in his final confrontation with Inez and her parents, in their matching hotel bathrobes.
But Mr. Wilson’s best match is Marion Cotillard as Adriana — everybody’s muse of the ’20s, mistress of Modigliani and Braque as well as Picasso — as gorgeously alive and carefree as Paris itself. By way of beautiful women, for good measure, Mr. Allen gives us Carla Bruni (aka Madame Nicolas Sarkozy) in the playful role of a museum tour guide.
The film’s real star, of course, is Paris, glowing and bewitchingly seductive in all its time eras here, thanks to Mr. Allen’s best visual-period rendering since “Purple Rose of Cairo” (1985) and “Bullets Over Broadway” (1994) — kudos to cinematographer Darius Khondji — and to brilliant use of such signature Cole Porter tunes as “Let’s Fall in Love.”
All in all, it’s the ultimate neurotic New Yorker’s ultimate “Paris, Je t’aime.”
Study question: Does anybody HATE Paris? When I took my mother and Aunt Thelmah to the Folies Bergere in the ’70s, our haughty waiter seated us at a table with two nuns. On another visit, I dropped my hotel room key down a sidewalk grate, and my resulting visit to the Parisian sewers was not nearly so romantic as the Phantom of the Opera’s or the Madwoman of Chaillot’s.
Well, never mind. Mr. Allen fell in love with Paris during the shooting of his debut film, “What’s New Pussycat?” (1965). He has no real sci-fi interest in time-travel, except as a useful device to plumb his recurring themes of love, longing and the pursuit of a happiness likely to end in pain. This is his pan-artistic meditation on the time-space continuum: Nostalgia as a denial of the painful present (and fear of the dubious future), for people who live in the past… Remember that awful old “Midnight in Paris” perfume and talcum powder in the cobalt-blue bottles that we bought our moms and dads (at Woolworth’s) for Christmas presents?
One man or woman’s Belle Epoque is another’s dull present. What’s remarkable is that Mr. Allen, at 75, is still making sweet, dreamy, upbeat pictures. This Parisian midnight is Woody’s Twilight Zone — like Rod Serling, in a relaxed mood.
I’ve said it before and beg your indulgence to say again: The least of Mr. Allen’s films are better than the best of the commercial dreck. And “Midnight in Paris” is by no means his least. Notice the PG-13 rating? Got any smart tweens or teens lying around the house? Pry ’em kicking and screaming away from the tube and the cartoon or franchise-sequel caca in the theaters, and drag them to “Paris.” See what they make of it.
Just don’t dive for any great depth, lest you hit your or their heads on the bottom.
Post-Gazette film critic emeritus Barry Paris can be reached at parispg48@aol.com
Belle de Jour Presentation In a film class my partner and I did a video presentation on the film Belle de Jour and the filmmaker Luis Bunuel. Bunuel was a surrealist, so if the video doesn’t quite makes sense, its not supposed to. ___________________________________________________ I am presently going through the characters referenced in Woody Allen’s […]
I am currently going through the characters referenced in the Woody Allen movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am looking at Henri Matisse. Below is a press release from a museum in San Francisco: the steins were known for their saturday evening salons, where artists, writers, musicians, intellectuals, and collectors gathered to discuss contemporary art, […]
Adriana and Gil are seen above walking together in the movie “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana was a fictional character who was Picasso’s mistress in the film. Earlier she had been Modigliani’s mistress and later Georges Braque’s mistress before moving on to Picasso according to the film story line. Actually Picasso had taken girls from others […]
An article from Biography.com below. I am currently going through all the personalities mentioned in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am spending time on Coco Chanel. By the way, I know that some of you are wondering how many posts I will have before I am finished. Right now I have plans […]
The Thinker (1879–1889) is among the most recognized works in all of sculpture. In fact, below you can see Paul who constantly is showing up Gil with his knowledge about these pieces of art. He shows off while describing Rodin’s life story when all four of them are taking in “The Thinker.” However, he is […]
Artists and bohemians inspired Woody Allen for ‘Midnight in Paris I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Today we will look at Salvador Dali. In this clip below you will see when Picasso […]
2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Lea Seydoux as Gabrielle in “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana and Gil are seen above walking together in the movie “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana was a fictional character who was Picasso’s mistress in the film. Earlier she had been Georges Braque’s mistress before moving on to Picasso according to […]
How Should We Then Live 7#3 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.” Paul Gauguin and Henri Toulouse Lautrec were the greatest painters of the post-impressionists. They are pictured together in 1890 in Paris in Woody Allen’s new movie “Midnight in Paris.” My favorite philosopher Francis Schaeffer […]
How Should We Then Live 7#1 Dr. Francis Schaeffer examines the Age of Non-Reason and he mentions the work of Paul Gauguin. 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Kurt Fuller as John and Mimi Kennedy as Helen in “Midnight in Paris.” I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am […]
Midnight In Paris – SPOILER Discussion by What The Flick?! Associated Press Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas in 1934 This video clip below discusses Gertrude Stein’s friendship with Pablo Picasso: I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that […]
2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Gad Elmaleh as Detective Tisserant in “Midnight in Paris.” I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Juan Belmonte was the most famous bullfighter of the time […]
Woody Allen explores fantasy world with “Midnight in Paris” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway in “Midnight in Paris.” The New York Times Ernest Hemingway, around 1937 I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers […]
What The Flick?!: Midnight In Paris – Review by What The Flick?! 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald and Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in “Midnight in Paris.” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony […]
The song used in “Midnight in Paris” I am going through the famous characters that Woody Allen presents in his excellent movie “Midnight in Paris.” This series may be a long one since there are so many great characters. De-Lovely – Movie Trailer De-Lovely – So in Love – Kevin Kline, Ashley Judd & Others […]
Photo by Phill Mullen The only known photograph of William Faulkner (right) with his eldest brother, John, was taken in 1949. Like his brother, John Faulkner was also a writer, though their writing styles differed considerably. My grandfather, John Murphey, (born 1910) grew up in Oxford, Mississippi and knew both Johncy and “Bill” Faulkner. He […]
I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” was so good that I will be doing a series on it. My favorite Woody Allen movie is Crimes and Misdemeanors and I will provide links to my earlier posts on that great movie. Movie Guide the Christian website had the following review: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is the […]
Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago: Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas What does King Solomon, the movie director Woody Allen and the modern rock bands Coldplay and Kansas have in common? All four took on the issues surrounding death, the meaning of life and a possible afterlife, although they all came up with their own conclusions on […]
Coldplay seeks to corner the market on earnest and expressive rock music that currently appeals to wide audiences Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin’s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it […]
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 done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:
Fix the budget process. Lawmakers still cling to a budget process created in 1974. Over the past 30 years, successive Congresses have punched this process full of holes, and federal spending has correspondingly tripled. The current budget process provides no workable tools to limit spending, no restrictions on passing massive costs onto future generations, and no incentive to bring all parties to the table early in the budget process to set a framework. The Family Budget Protection Act, authored by Representatives Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chris Chocola (R-IN), and Christopher Cox (R-CA), provides a comprehensive proposal for creating a budget process that reflects America’s budget priorities and should be closely examined by anyone interested in budget reform.
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 done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:
Reform entitlements. Spending cannot be restrained without reforming entitlements, which comprise two-thirds of all federal spending and threaten the country’s long-term finances. (See Chart 2.) These programs are projected to grow by 6 percent annually for the next decade. Table 1, which displays the spending restraint needed to balance the budget by 2014, shows that all scenarios to balance the budget by 2014 require reducing the 6 percent annual growth rate of mandatory spending. Lawmakers seeking to rein in spending should put all entitlement spending on the table, including the 2003 Medicare drug bill and the 2002 farm bill.
From 2000 to 2010, real federal spending will have increased from $21,875 per household to $30,543 per household.
In 2010, the federal government will spend $30,543 per household, collect taxes of $17,879 per household, and run a budget deficit of $12,664 per household.
Under President Obama’s budget, deficits from 2010 through 2020 would total $82,219 per household.
Surging Social Security, Medicare, and net interest costs are set to crowd out spending on other programs.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney answers a question as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, left, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, listen during the first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, June 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire pt.10
KING: We’re in the closing moments of our Republican presidential debate here on the St. Anselm College campus, Manchester, New Hampshire. Time flies when you’re having fun. One last segment with the candidates.
Let’s kick off by going down on to the floor, WMUR’s Jennifer Vaughn.
VAUGHN: Hi, Mr. Cain. This one is for you. Public opinion polls consistently result in low approval ratings for Congress as a whole. And early polls show a lack of enthusiasm for this field of candidates. Most of you will say that you don’t watch polls, but shouldn’t you pay attention to public sentiment? And aren’t these polls a direct reflection of what voters are and are not looking for?
CAIN: Yes. I happen to believe that the polls do represent a barometer, because it’s way too early. Secondly, probably a lot of the people don’t know us yet, because it’s still real early in the process.
So as people get to know us more and more, I think they’re going to find that this really is a good field of candidates, at least in my opinion. But the people that know the most about everybody up here, they don’t see this as a weak field, and neither do I.
KING: All right. It is likely that the Republican nominee for president is standing on the stage tonight. If you win the nomination, you’ll have to make the choice that a nominee makes, and that is picking a running mate.
Governor Pawlenty to you, look back on 2008 and the process. President Obama made a pick. Senator McCain made a pick. Who made the best choice?
PAWLENTY: Senator Biden has been wrong about every major strategic decision in the modern history of the international conflict and military. Look at his judgment about partitioning Iraq, for example. Now we have Iraq being probably one of the shining example of success in the Middle East.
If Vice President Biden would have had his way, we would have had a partitioned Iraq and probably more mayhem in the Middle East. I think Governor Palin is a remarkable leader. I think she’s qualified to be president of the United States.
I think she’s equally as qualified or more qualified, and would have been as strong of a president as Joe Biden. He’s wrong on everything.
KING: Go ahead, Governor.
ROMNEY: John, any one of the people on this stage would be a better president than President Obama. He has failed in job one, which was to get this economy going again. He failed in job two, which was to restrain the growth of the government. And he failed in job three, which is to have a coherent, consistent foreign policy.
We’ve had presidents in the past that had bad foreign policies. This is the first time we’ve had a president that doesn’t have a foreign policy. And this hit or miss approach has meant a couple of successes, like getting Osama bin Laden — congratulations — but a lot of misses, like throwing our friends under the bus. And that’s why any of these people who gets better known by the American people will serve as president with distinction over the future.
KING: If that is you, if there is a President Bachmann, and you’re only allowed to hire one of the candidates on the stage, which one would it be and why?
ROMNEY: Don’t choose the old guys.
BACHMANN: Well, maybe we’ll have to have an “American Idol” contest and go from there. We’ll let the audience decide.
KING: Let the audience decide. Congressman Paul, if you were the president of the United States and you could pick one, but just one of these gentlemen and the lady, to join your administration, who would it be and why?
PAUL: Join the administration?
KING: Yes.
PAUL: I would think everybody would qualify.
KING: You only get to pick one. It’s about choices.
PAUL: I have to pick one? Hum? Let me look — let me look them over. I would have to do a bit more quizzing. I would have to — they haven’t even told me how they feel about the Federal Reserve yet. They haven’t told me about the foreign policy. So I have to do some more quizzing.
KING: We’re down to our last minute. I want to try to get to everybody. I want to start with you, Senator Santorum. What have you learned in the last two hours.
SANTORUM: I think what Hermann said. We have a great field of candidates. I was very impressed by what I heard. I hope everybody else was. These are folks that answered the questions that were asked of them.
KING: Congresswoman?
BACHMANN: In the last two hours, I’ve learned more about the goodness of the American people — from the question from John, his three sons that are serving in the Navy, his wonderful service. Everyone who asked a question has talked to me about —
KING: Don’t mean to interrupt you.
GINGRICH: I think once again, New Hampshire is proving why it’s first in the nation as the primary, because the questions are so good.
KING: Governor?
ROMNEY: And New Hampshire is proving that the issue people care most about is getting this economy growing again, so that we can have rising housing prices again. People can have the kind of incomes they deserve. They don’t have to wonder whether the future is brighter than the past. People in New Hampshire love the future.
PAUL: I’ve learned with the group here that disagrees on some issues, we can talk about it and be civil to each other.
KING: Governor?
PAWLENTY: I learned that if you trust the people, our future is bright and I learned that the Boston Bruins have more heart than the Vancouver Canucks.
KING: Mr. Cain?
CAIN: What I’ve learned is that all of these candidates up here share one thing in common. And that is, it’s not about us. It’s about the children and the grandchildren. We’re not that far apart on all of the big issues.
KING: I want to thank all seven of our candidates tonight. I want to thank “The Union Leader,” WMUR and St. Anselm College for having us. We have a feisty campaign to come. Please pay attention at home.
I want to thank everybody here. I’m John King. I’ll see you tomorrow on “JOHN KING USA.” Anderson Cooper continues our coverage. Post-debate analysis right now.
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 done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:
Freeze discretionary spending in 2005. Discretionary spending leaped 39 percent between 2001 and 2004. Even after excluding defense and costs related to September 11, discretionary spending is rising 7 percent annually. Do these agencies need yet another spending increase this year? Congress and the President should do what millions of families do: set priorities and balance each high-priority spending increase with a low-priority spending cut.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, right, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich share a laugh as they wave before the first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Monday, June 13, 2011. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is at left. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
Republican Presidential Debate In New Hampshire pt.9
KING: Welcome back. Seven Republican candidates for president debating on the campus of St. Anselm Congress in beautiful Manchester, New Hampshire — St. Anselm College, excuse me. We want to turn to foreign policy now.
I want to move up to Hancock and Jean Mackin, and she’s got a question.
MACKIN: I’m here with John Brown from Swanzey, New Hampshire. He’s retired from the U.S. Navy, 25 years of service. Right now, he has three sons serving in the Navy. So you can imagine he has a very important question. What would you like to ask tonight, John?
JOHN BROWN, VOTER: Osama bin Laden is dead. We’ve been in Afghanistan for ten years. Isn’t it time to bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan?
KING: Governor Romney, take the lead on that one. ROMNEY: It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the country over to the Taliban military in a way that they’re able to defend themselves. Excuse me, the Afghan military to defend themselves from the Taliban. That’s an important distinction.
I want to say, first of all, thank you to you for the sacrifice of your family and your sons in defending the liberty that we have and our friends around the world. Thank you for what you’ve done.
KING: Congressman Paul?
ROMNEY: Let me — let me continue. That is I think we’ve learned some important lessons in our experience in Afghanistan. I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals.
But I also think we’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban. Thank you.
KING: Congressman Paul, do you agree with that decision?
PAUL: Not quite. I served five years in the military. I’ve had a little experience. I’ve spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander in chief.
I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan.
I’d start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.
Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. The longer we’re there, the worse things are and the more danger we’re in as well, because our presence there is not making friends let me tell you.
KING: Governor Pawlenty, a growing number of Republicans are more skeptical of these foreign involvements. But I want you to take what Congressman Paul just said there. Let’s focus on one.
He said no bombing in Yemen. The strikes in Yemen have been targeted at al Qaeda leaders, at al Qaeda operatives, who the president of the United States, who happens to be a Democrat in his case, views as serious threats against this nation. Do you agree with Congressman Paul there or do you agree with President Obama and the strikes?
PAWLENTY: Let me first say to John, thank you for your family’s commitment to our nation, to your service, to the sacrifices that you made and to the burdens that you bear. I know I speak for everyone in this room and all across this country when we say we’re grateful to you. We wouldn’t have the country without people lie you and your sons. Thank you very much.
Beyond that, John, I start with this perspective. On September 11th, 2001, individuals and groups killed 3,000 or so of our fellow Americans. They would have killed not 3,000, but 30,000 or 300,000 or 30 million if they could have. If they had the capability to do that in their hands — and as soon as they get it, they’ll try.
The first duty of the president of the United States, as the leader of this nation and commander in chief, is to make sure the nation is safe. You bet. If there are individuals I have intelligence on, or groups in Yemen that present a threat to our security interests in that region or the United States of America, you can bet they will hear from me and we’ll continue the bombings.
KING: Let’s stay on foreign policy. I want to move the questioning. Tom Foreman up in Rochester. Tom. We lost him.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: I’d like to know your opinion on your involvement with Libya.
KING: Congresswoman Bachmann, should the president have supported and jointed more U.S. presence, but now a NATO operation? Was that the right thing to do? Is that in the vital national interest of the United States of America?
BACHMANN: No, I don’t believe so it is. That isn’t just my opinion. That was the opinion of our defense secretary, Gates, when he came before the United States Congress. He could not identify a vital national American interest in Libya.
Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. It’s interesting. President Obama’s own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn’t lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind.
We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That’s all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya.
First of all, we were not attacked. We were not threatened with attack. There was no vital national interest. I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. We deal with the nation’s vital classified secrets.
We to this day don’t yet know who the rebel forces are that we’re helping. There are some reports that they may contain al Qaeda of North Africa. What possible vital American interests could we have to empower al Qaeda of North Africa and Libya? The president was absolutely wrong in his decision on Libya. KING: Mr. Speaker, address the same question. Was it in the vital national interest of the United States? As you do so, I had a conversation with a soon-to-be candidate who is not here tonight, Governor Huntsman, recently, who said he didn’t think when it came to vital national interest. And he also said we can’t afford it right now.
Should the price tag be a factor when you’re the commander in chief of the United States?
GINGRICH: Sure. The price tag is always a factor, because, as General Eisenhower once he was president pointed out, as Abraham Lincoln understood, as George Washington understood, that’s part of the decision.
But I think what Congresswoman Bachmann just said ought to really sober everybody about how much trouble we’re in. Ten years after 9/11, our intelligence is so inadequate that we have no idea what percent of the Libyan rebels are, in fact, al Qaeda. Libya was the second largest producer of people who wanted to kill Americans in Iraq.
I think that we need to think fundamentally about reassessing our entire strategy in the region. I think that we should say to the generals we would like to figure out to get out as rapid as possible with the safety of the troops involved. And we had better find new and very different strategies because this is too big a problem for us to deal with the American ground forces in direct combat.
We have got to have a totally new strategy for the region, because we don’t today have the kind of intelligence we need to know even what we’re doing.
KING: Mr. Cain, take 30 seconds, please. People might say he’s a businessman. He has no experience in government. How would you look at your responsibilities, draw that line, vital U.S. national interests as commander in chief?
CAIN: It starts with making sure we understand the problem, which I don’t think we did. We didn’t have the intelligence. Number two, is it in the vital interest of the United States of America? If the answer is no, then we don’t go any further. If it’s not in the vital interest of America, To paraphrase my grandmother, with the situation in Libya and many of these other situations, they’re not simple situations. It’s a mess. It’s just an absolute mess.
And there’s more that we don’t know than we do know, so it will be very difficult to know exactly what we do until, like others have said, we learn from the commanders in the field.
KING: Let’s stay on how you would all focus as a commander in chief. Let’s move down. Jennifer has a voter with a question.
VAUGHN: Staying on this topic, John, thank you. I’d like you to meet Greg Salts, who lives here in Manchester, New Hampshire. What’s your question tonight for the candidates? GREG SALTS, TRUCK DRIVER: Well, I support the U.S. military. But frankly, we’re in debt up to our eyeballs. We have nation building going on around the world. We’re the world’s police force. World War II is over. The Korean War is over. But we still have military bases all over Europe, all over Asia.
We have something like 900 military bases all around the world. I want to know if there’s a candidate on the stage who is willing to shut down the bulk — not the bulk of these bases, but the bases that aren’t vital to our national security, and take that money to pay off our national debt?
KING: Senator Santorum, why don’t I start with you on this one?
SANTORUM: We have actually closed down a lot of bases overseas. Look, what we’re dealing with is a failure of leadership on this administration’s part to actually put together a strategy where we can confront our enemies. And our enemies are asymmetric threats: terrorism.
That means that they are not just the positioned in the Middle East, but around the world. That means we have to have the ability to confront those threats from around the world, which means we need basing around the world.
So number one, we do need that basing. We do need to be able to be nimble and to be able to attack where we’re attacked because it’s not just a threat. We don’t need to build bases in Germany for a threat from the Soviet Union.
Its much broader threat, number one. So we have to engage our allies and have our allies know that we have their back. The president has not done that. He’s done everything he can, whether it’s Israel or Honduras or whether it’s Colombia or whether it’s Czechs, the Poles — he has turned his back on American allies and he has embraced our enemies.
Our enemies no longer respect us. Our friends no longer trust us. And we have a foreign policy that unfortunately now we’re probably going to need more of a presence, because we’ve created such a vacuum. Thus, all the contingency operations you’re seeing here as a result of America’s fecklessness in dealing with the threats that confront us.
KING: I need to step in on time here. We have to take our last break of the evening. I know a lot of you have a lot of things to say. We’ll get to more issues.
As we do some, if you take a look up here, you’ll see the conversation on Facebook and Twitter. A lot of good questions. Would you have released the bin Laden photos? Would you support Israel at any cost if they’re attacked by surrounding hostile countries.
Good questions from our viewers there. We’re here on the campus of St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. Seven Republican candidates for president. We’ll be right back.
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 done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:
Balance the budget by 2014 without raising taxes. Budget deficits are merely a symptom of two larger problems: a sluggish economy and runaway spending. Restoring economic growth requires low tax rates, and runaway spending is the most dangerous threat to pro-growth tax relief. Balancing the budget with spending cuts will improve the country’s ability to deal with the massive Social Security and Medicare liabilities that will come due when the baby boomers retire.
Under President Obama’s budget, Washington is projected to spend $3,618 billion, raise $2,118 billion, and run a $1,500 billion deficit in 2010.
Tax revenues strongly correlate with economic growth. The recession is chiefly responsible for collapsing revenues.
Spending has increased 19 percent faster than inflation since 2008.
The projected $1,500 billion budget deficit represents a post–World War II record 10.3 percent of GDP. More than 41 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2010 will be borrowed
The Daily Hatch 