President Obama responds to Heritage Foundation critics on welfare reform waivers

Is President Obama gutting the welfare reform that Bill Clinton signed into law?

Amy Payne

August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am

The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful 1996 reform’s work requirements is “categorically false” and “blatantly dishonest.” Even former President Bill Clinton, who signed the reform into law, came out parroting the Obama team’s talking points and saying the charge was “not true.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley first broke the story on July 12 that Obama’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) had rewritten the Clinton-era reform to undo the work requirements, in a move that legal experts Todd Gaziano and Robert Alt determined was patently illegal.

The Administration’s new argument has two parts: denying the Obama Administration’s actions and claiming that Republican governors, including Mitt Romney, tried to do the same thing. In essence, “We did not do what you’re saying, but even if we did, some Republicans did it, too.” Both parts of this argument are easily debunked.

Obama Administration Claim #1: We Didn’t Gut Work Requirements

Ever since the 1996 law passed, Democratic leaders have attempted (unsuccessfully) to repeal welfare’s work standards, blocking reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) and attempting to weaken the requirements. Unable to eliminate “workfare” legislatively, the Obama HHS claimed authority to grant waivers that allow states to get around the work requirements.

Humorously, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now asserts that the Administration abolished the TANF work requirements to increase work.

HHS now claims that states receiving a waiver must “commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s prior performance.” But given the normal turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of people moving from “welfare to work” is to increase the number entering welfare in the first place.

Bogus statistical ploys like these were the norm before the 1996 reform. The law curtailed use of sham measures of success and established meaningful standards: Participating in work activities meant actual work activities, not “bed rest” or “reading” or doing one hour of job search per month; reducing welfare dependence meant reducing caseloads. Now those standards are gone.

Obama’s HHS claims authority to overhaul every aspect of the TANF work provisions (contained in section 407), including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures and the calculation of participation rates.” In other words, the whole work program. Sebelius’s HHS bureaucracy declared the existing TANF law a blank slate on which it can design any policy it chooses.

Obama Administration Claim #2: Even If We Did, the Republicans Tried It, Too

Though the Obama Administration is claiming it is not trying to get around the work requirements, it is also claiming that a group of Republican governors tried to do the same thing in 2005. Clinton also said in his statement yesterday that “the recently announced waiver policy was originally requested” by Republican governors.

Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector addressed this claim back on July 19. As Rector explains:

But [the governors’] letter makes no mention at all of waiving work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In fact, the legislation promoted in the letter—the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act—actually would have toughened the federal work standards. It proposed raising the mandatory participation rates imposed on states from 50 percent to 70 percent of the adult TANF caseload and increasing the hours of required work activity.

The governors’ letter actually contradicts the Administration’s main argument: If the law has always permitted HHS to waive the work requirements, then why didn’t the governors just request waivers from then-President George W. Bush? Why would legislation be needed?

Two reasons: First, it has been clear for 15 years that the TANF law did not permit HHS to waive the work requirements. Second, the Republican governors were not seeking to waive the work requirements in the first place.

Obama’s Evolution from Welfare to Work and Back

President Obama had a convenient change of heart regarding welfare reform when it was time to run for President. In 1998, when he was an Illinois state senator, Obama said:

I was not a huge supporter of the federal plan that was signed in 1996. Having said that, I do think that there is a potential political opportunity that arose out of welfare reform. And that is to desegregate the welfare population—meaning the undeserving poor, black folks in cities, from the working poor—deserving, white, rural as well as suburban.

The same year, he reiterated that “the 1996 legislation I did not entirely agree with and probably would have voted against at the federal level.”

But in 2008, when he was running for President, Obama said he had changed his mind about welfare reform: “I was much more concerned 10 years ago when President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have disastrous results….It had—it worked better than, I think, a lot of people anticipated. And, you know, one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to work as a centerpiece of any social policy.”

One of his 2008 campaign ads touted “the Obama record: moved people from welfare to work” and promised that as President, he would “never forget the dignity that comes from work.”

This evolution is unsurprising, considering the vast majority of Americans favor requiring welfare recipients to work.

President Obama has finally accomplished what Democrats have been trying to do for years. He has even gotten President Clinton to turn his back on one of the signature achievements of his Administration to give him political cover—which Clinton was quick to do. In 1996, Clinton had to compromise and allow the tough work requirements to get the legislation passed.

Both Presidents have now revealed their true feelings about welfare—and there’s no denying it.

___________

President Obama responds to Heritage Foundation critics on welfare reform waivers

Is President Obama gutting the welfare reform that Bill Clinton signed into law? Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform Amy Payne August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful […]

Welfare reform part 3

Thomas Sowell – Welfare Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform By Robert Rector and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. February 6, 2003 Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation overhauling part of the nation’s welfare system. […]

Welfare reform part 2

Uploaded by ForaTv on May 29, 2009 Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/05/18/James_Bartholomew_The_Welfare_State_Were_In Author James Bartholomew argues that welfare benefits actually increase government handouts by ‘ruining’ ambition. He compares welfare to a humane mousetrap. —– Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. In the controversial […]

Free or equal? 30 years after Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (Part 3)

Johan Norberg – Free or Equal – Free to Choose 30 years later 3/5 Published on Jun 10, 2012 by BasicEconomics In 1980 economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman inspired market reform in the West and revolutions in the East with his celebrated television series “Free To Choose.” Thirty years later, in this one-hour documentary, […]

Great cartoon from Dan Mitchell’s blog on government moochers

I thought it was great when the Republican Congress and Bill Clinton put in welfare reform but now that has been done away with and no one has to work anymore it seems. In fact, over 40% of the USA is now on the government dole. What is going to happen when that figure gets over […]

Why did Obama stop the Welfare Reform that Clinton put in?

Thomas Sowell If the welfare reform law was successful then why change it? Wasn’t Bill Clinton the president that signed into law? Obama Guts Welfare Reform Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley July 12, 2012 at 4:10 pm Today, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 120)

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

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response July 10,2012 on welfare, etc (part 14)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 10, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

Welfare reform part 1

Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform By Robert Rector and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. February 6, 2003 Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation overhauling part of the nation’s welfare system. The Personal Responsibility and […]

 

August 8, 2012 – 12:58 pm Categories: Current Events, President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Welfare reform part 3

Thomas Sowell – Welfare

Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003.

The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform

By and
February 6, 2003

Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation overhauling part of the nation’s welfare system. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) replaced the failed social program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform legislation had three goals: (1) to reduce welfare dependence and increase employment; (2) to reduce child poverty; and (3) to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage.

WELFARE REFORM AND CHILD POVERTY

A recent paper by Dr. Rebecca M. Blank, former member of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton White House, examines the link between welfare reform and child poverty.22 Professor Blank analyzes the income of families with children from 1992 to 2000 and finds that incomes rose for all but the bottom 2 percent of families with children. Moreover, poor families showed greater income gains than higher-income families, “suggesting that most poor families experienced larger income gains than did most middle and upper-middle income families.”23

Dr. Blank’s analysis shows a direct link between state welfare reform policies and rising incomes among poor families. States with welfare reform programs that offered “strong work incentives” showed greater increases in the income of single parents with children than did states with weak work incentives. Moreover,

at the bottom of the distribution, states with strong work incentives have the smallest share of children in families with negative changes in income, while states with the weakest work incentives show the highest share of children with [decreases in income].24

In other words, states with strong welfare work incentives had fewer families that lost income than did states with weak welfare work incentives. Blank finds that these income differences are the result of state welfare policies rather than differences in state economies.

In addition, Dr. Blank examines the effects of tough welfare reform “penalties” on the incomes of poor single-parent families. Examining the impact of stricter time limits and strong sanction policies that “provide a strong enforcement mechanism for women to participate in welfare-to-work programs,” she finds that tough welfare policies had a positive effect in raising the incomes of poor families. Overall, states with stricter time limits and stronger sanction policies were more successful in raising the incomes of poor children than were states with lenient policies. Dr. Blank concludes that

states with strict or moderate penalties for not working consistently show higher income gains among poor children throughout the income distribution than do states with lenient penalties…. [I]t is the more lenient states with softer penalties where children’s income seems to have grown least.25

Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing and the Economy
Out-of-wedlock childbearing and marriage rates have never been correlated to periods of economic growth. Efforts to link the positive changes in these areas to growth in the economy are without any basis in fact. The onset of welfare reform is the only plausible explanation for the shifts in these social trends. welfare reform affected out-of-wedlock childbearing and marriage in two ways.

First, even before passage of the law, the public debate about welfare reform sent a strong symbolic message that, in the future, welfare would be time-limited and that single mothers would be expected to work and be self-reliant. This message communicated to potential single mothers that the welfare system would be less supportive of out-of-wedlock childbearing and that raising a child outside of marriage would be more challenging in the future. The reduction in out-of-wedlock births was, at least in part, a response to this message.

Second, reform indirectly reduced welfare’s disincentives to marriage. Traditional welfare stood as an economic alternative to marriage, and mothers on welfare faced very stiff financial penalties if they did marry. As women leave AFDC/TANF as a result of welfare reform, fewer are affected by welfare’s financial penalties against marriage. In addition, some women may rely on husbands to provide income that is no longer available from welfare. Thus, as the number of women on welfare shrinks, marriage and cohabitation rates among low-income individuals can be expected to rise.

Welfare Reform and the Current Recession
When welfare reform was enacted, liberal opponents predicted that it would yield sharp increases in poverty even in good economic times; the effects of reform during a recession were expected to be disastrous. As noted, liberal predictions about the negative effects of reform during good economic times have been proven completely erroneous. Moreover, the disastrous effects expected of welfare reform during an economic downturn have, at least so far, failed to materialize during the current recession.

Historically, during a recession, overall child poverty rises by two to three percentage points. For example, during the economic downturn in the early 1990s, the overall child poverty rate rose from 14.8 percent to 17.8 percent. Historically, black child poverty rises even more sharply during a recession. During the back-to-back recessions in the early 1980s, for example, black child poverty rose by more than six percentage points, from 41.2 percent in 1979 to 47.6 percent in 1982.

However, during the current recession (which began in April 2001), these traditional negative patterns have not appeared. While the poverty rate for adults rose during 2001 in a manner consistent with prior recessions, the poverty rates for children in general — and for black children in particular — differed sharply from prior historical patterns. Despite the recession, from 2000 to 2001, the overall child poverty rate remained flat.26 The poverty rate for black children actually fell by a full percentage point from 31.2 percent in 2000 to 30.2 percent in 2001. Such a decline in black child poverty during a recession is without historical precedent.

While the child poverty figures for 2001 (the first year of the current recession) are unusually positive, a note of caution is warranted. The effects of a recession on poverty often continue and deepen for two or three years after the recession’s onset. Thus, when the Census Bureau releases poverty figures for 2002 and 2003, it is quite possible that reported child poverty will increase.27 However, if the unusual poverty figures for 2001 are any indication, the overall increase in child poverty (if any) generated by the current recession is likely to be far milder than in prior economic downturns.

The welfare dependence figures during the current recession also differ sharply from prior recessions. As Chart 3 shows, the AFDC caseload almost always rose during recessions.28 In some cases, the increase in caseload was dramatic. For example, during the early 1990s, the AFDC caseload rose by around 30 percent. However, during the current recession, the TANF caseload has actually declined. Between the beginning of the recession in April 2001 and September 2002 (the date of the most recent available data), the caseload actually fell by 4.4 percent.

The fact that welfare caseloads have, up to now, declined during the current recession is good news. However, a note of caution is, again, warranted. The effects of a recession in increasing welfare dependence may continue for several years after the onset of the recession. Thus, it is possible that TANF caseloads will rise during 2003. However, the recent trends in caseload strongly suggest that, if TANF caseloads do rise in 2003, the increase will be quite small when compared to increases spurred by prior recessions.

The fact that child poverty has not, as yet, risen during the present recession is linked to the continuing decline of TANF caseloads. During previous recessions, large numbers of single mothers left employment and entered the AFDC program. Families on AFDC are almost always poor. Thus, increases in welfare caseloads during prior recessions invariably led to concurrent increases in child poverty. However, the work requirements and time limits established by welfare reform have created strong pressures discouraging single mothers from leaving employment and entering welfare. The fact that TANF caseloads have not risen during the current recession has, in turn, helped to limit any rise in child poverty.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

The trends of the past six years have led some of the strongest critics of welfare reform to reconsider their opposition, at least in part. In 1996, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services Policy Wendell Primus also resigned from the Clinton Administration to protest the President’s signing of the welfare reform legislation, predicting that the new law would throw millions of children into poverty.

As Director of Income Security at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Primus has spent the past six years analyzing the effects of welfare reform. The evidence has tempered his earlier pessimism. “In many ways,” he recently stated, “welfare reform is working better than I thought it would. The sky isn’t falling anymore. Whatever we have been doing over the last five years, we ought to keep going.”29

Wendell Primus is correct. When Congress reauthorizes the TANF program this year, it should push forward boldly to promote further the three explicit goals of the 1996 reform:

  1. To reduce dependence and increase employment;
  2. To reduce child poverty; and
  3. To reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage.

These three goals are linked synergistically. Work requirements in welfare will reduce dependence and increase employment, which in turn will reduce poverty. As fewer women depend on welfare in the future, marriage rates may well rise. Increasing marriage, in turn, is the most effective means of reducing poverty.

Next Steps in Reform
When Congress reauthorizes Temporary Assistance to Needy Families in 2003, it should take the following specific steps.

  1. Strengthen federal work requirements
    Currently, about half of the 2 million mothers on TANF are idle on the rolls and are not engaged in constructive activities leading to self-sufficiency. This is unacceptable. Existing federal work requirements must be greatly strengthened so that all able-bodied parents are engaged continuously in supervised job search, community service work, or training.

    In addition, some states still provide federal welfare as an unconditional entitlement; recipients who refuse to perform required activities continue to receive most benefits. In reauthorizing the TANF program, Congress should ensure that the law prohibits federal funds from being misused in this manner in the future.

    Some might object to toughening work requirements during a recession, but it is important to remember that the TANF reauthorization law will set the rules for the program not for one year, but for the next five years. Provisions to toughen federal work requirements can be phased in so that they do not take effect until 2005 or later, long after the current recession has passed.

  2. Strengthen marriage
    As Chart 5 shows, the poverty rate among single-parent families is about five times higher than the poverty rate among married-couple families. The most effective way to reduce child poverty and increase child well-being is to increase the number of stable, healthy marriages. This can be accomplished in three ways.

First, the substantial penalties against marriage in the overall welfare system should be reduced. As it is currently structured, welfare rewards illegitimacy and wages war against marriage. That war must cease.30

Second, the government should educate young men and women on the benefits of healthy marriage in life.

Third, programs should provide couples with the skills needed to reduce conflict and physical abuse and to increase satisfaction and longevity in a marital relationship.

The 1996 TANF law established the formal goals of reducing out-of-wedlock childbearing and increasing marriage, but despite nearly $100 billion in TANF spending over the past five years, the states have spent virtually nothing on specific pro-marriage programs. The slowdown in the growth of illegitimacy and the increases in marriage have occurred as the incidental byproduct of work-related reforms and not as the result of positive pro-marriage initiatives by the states. The current neglect of marriage is scandalous and deeply injurious to the well-being of children. In future years, at least $300 million in TANF funds should be earmarked for pro-marriage initiatives.

CONCLUSION

More than 20 years ago, President Jimmy Carter stated, “the welfare system is anti-work, anti-family, inequitable in its treatment of the poor and wasteful of the taxpayers’ dollars.”31 President Carter was correct in his assessment.

The 1996 welfare reform began necessary changes in the disastrous old welfare system. The rewards for non-work in the TANF program have been substantially reduced. But much more remains to be done. When Congress reauthorizes TANF this year, it should ensure that, in the future, all able-bodied welfare recipients are required to work or undertake other constructive activities as a condition of receiving aid.

But increasing work is not enough. Each year, one-third of all children are born outside of wedlock; this means that one child is born to an unmarried mother every 25 seconds. This collapse of marriage is the principal cause of child poverty and welfare dependence. In addition, children in these families are more likely to become involved in crime, to have emotional and behavioral problems, to be physically abused, to fail in school, to abuse drugs, and to end up on welfare as adults.

Despite these harsh facts, the anti-marriage effects of welfare, which President Carter noted over two decades ago, are largely intact. The current indifference and hostility to marriage in the welfare system is a national disgrace. In reauthorizing TANF, Congress must make the rebuilding of marriage its top priority. The restoration of marriage in American society is truly the next frontier of welfare reform.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies, and Patrick F. Fagan is William H. G. FitzGerald Research Fellow in Family and Cultural Issues, at The Heritage Foundation. This paper is an updated version of Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1468, published on September 5, 2001.

August 8, 2012 – 12:49 pm Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Francis Schaeffer’s film series “How should we then live?” (Final Choices) can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

Francis and Edith Schaeffer January 1975
Huemoz sur Ollon at L’abri, Switzerland

America has some big choices to make and Francis Schaeffer does a great job of showing what the problems are and what choices we have. Below is a portion of this episode with links below to the complete episodes:

E P I S O D E 1 0

How Should We Then Live 10#1

FINAL CHOICES

I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option

One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes.

A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes.

B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Theobald.

C. Daniel Bell’s prophecy of technocratic elite.

D. Bell’s warning of cultural contradiction: no absolute ethic to accompany absolute power.

II. Nature of the New Authoritarianism

A. Do not think of the model of Hitler and Stalin.

B. Probably a manipulative, authoritarian elite.

III. Possible Forms of Manipulation

A. Review from Episode Six: Koestler—chemical agents; Krantz—birth control in world’s drinking supply; Clark—political leaders should take anti-aggression pills; Lee—psychological tests for public officials; Skinner—reinforcers to modify behavior.

B. Genetic condition: Francis Crick.

1. He advocates:

a) That some group of people is to decide who should be the parents of the next generation and who should be born.

b) That some group of people should determine what kind of people they want in the future and will set out genetically to make them.

2. Once Man is no longer seen as made in God’s image, there is no reason not to “tinker” with Man genetically.

C. The mass media.

1. TV conditions by selective editing. Illustration: simulated riot filmed in San Jose.

2. No collusion needed if views of elite and newsmakers coincide. Media not monolithic, but total control not needed to achieve manipulation.

IV Authoritarianism in Government. Illustration: United States

A. The dilemma of people who speak out for civil liberties but are also committed to the government’s having a responsibility to solve every problem.

B. Christian freedoms without Christian base produce chaos.

C. In the United States an authoritarian, manipulating government could come from the administrative (executive) side, the legislature, or from the courts functioning on variable, sociological law.

Other segments:

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)

How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]

August 8, 2012 – 12:47 pm Categories: Francis Schaeffer | Post a comment

Welfare reform part 2

Uploaded by on May 29, 2009

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/05/18/James_Bartholomew_The_Welfare_State_Were_In

Author James Bartholomew argues that welfare benefits actually increase government handouts by ‘ruining’ ambition. He compares welfare to a humane mousetrap.

—–

Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003.

In the controversial book The Welfare State We’re In, James Bartholomew argues that the welfare state in Britain has resulted in a generation of badly educated and dependent citizens, leading to lives of deprivation for thousands and undermining the original intent behind its creation in the 1940s.

Has the welfare state really led to more harm than good? What does this imply for the ever-expanding welfare state in the United States? – Cato Institute

James Bartholomew trained as a banker in the City of London before moving into journalism with the Financial Times and the Far Eastern Economic Review, for whom he worked in Hong Kong and Tokyo. Returning to England on the Trans-Siberian Railway through communist China and the Soviet Union an experience which influenced his political outlook he subsequently became a leader writer on The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

____________________________

The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform

By and
February 6, 2003

Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation overhauling part of the nation’s welfare system. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) replaced the failed social program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform legislation had three goals: (1) to reduce welfare dependence and increase employment; (2) to reduce child poverty; and (3) to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage.

Plummeting Welfare Dependence
The designers of welfare reform were concerned that prolonged welfare dependence had negative effects on the development of children. Their goal was to disrupt inter-generational dependence by moving families with children off the welfare rolls through increased work and marriage. Since the enactment of welfare reform, welfare dependence has been cut by more than half. The caseload in the former AFDC (now TANF) program has fallen from 4.3 million families in August 1996 to 2.02 million in September 2002. (See Chart 3.)

bg 1620 - chart 3

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the decline in welfare dependence has been greatest among the most disadvantaged and least employable single mothers — the group with the greatest tendency toward long-term dependence. Specifically, dependence has fallen most sharply among young never-married mothers who have low levels of education and young children.17This is dramatic confirmation that welfare reform is affecting the whole welfare caseload, not merely the most employable mothers.

Strikingly, the TANF caseload has continued to decline even during the current recession. The caseload has fallen from 2.109 million families in April 2001 at the beginning of the recession to 2.017 million in September 2002 (the most recently measured month). This represents a net decline in caseload of 4.4 percent since the beginning of the recession. The continuing decline in welfare dependence during the recession stands in sharp contrast to the 30 percent growth in the AFDC caseload during the economic slowdown of the early 1990s.

Increased Employment
Since the mid-1990s, the employment rate of single mothers has increased dramatically. Again, contrary to conventional wisdom, employment has increased most rapidly among the most disadvantaged, least employable groups:

  • Employment of never-married mothers has increased nearly 50 percent.
  • Employment of single mothers who are high school dropouts has risen by two-thirds.
  • Employment of young single mothers (ages 18 to 24) has nearly doubled.18

Thus, against conventional wisdom, the effects of welfare reform have been the greatest among the most disadvantaged single parents — those with the greatest barriers to self-sufficiency. Both decreases in dependence and increases in employment have been most dramatic among those who have the greatest tendency to long-term dependence; that is, among the younger never-married mothers with little education.

A Halt in the Rise of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing
After the beginning of the War on poverty, the illegitimacy rate (the percentage of births outside of marriage) increased enormously. For nearly three decades, out-of-wedlock births as a share of all births rose steadily at a rate of almost one percentage point per year. Overall, out-of-wedlock births rose from 7.7 percent of all births in 1965 to an astonishing 32.6 percent in 1994. However, in the mid-1990s, the relentless 30-year rise in illegitimacy came to an abrupt halt. For the past five years, the out-of-wedlock birth rate has remained essentially flat. (See Chart 4.)

Among blacks, the out-of-wedlock birth rate actually fell from 70.4 percent in 1994 to 68.8 percent in 1999. Among whites, the rate rose slightly, from 25.5 percent to 26.7 percent, but the rate of increase was far slower than it had been in the period prior to welfare reform.

A Shift Toward Marriage
Throughout the War on poverty period, marriage eroded. However, since the welfare reform was enacted, this negative trend has begun to reverse. The share of children living with single mothers has declined, while the share living with married couples has increased.

This change is most pronounced among blacks. Between 1994 and 1999, the share of black children living with single mothers fell from 47.1 percent to 43.1 percent, while the share living with married couples rose from 34.8 percent to 38.9 percent. Similar though smaller shifts occurred among Hispanics.19

While these changes are small, they do represent a distinct reversal of the prevailing negative trends of the past four decades. If these shifts toward marriage are harbingers of future social trends, they are the most positive and significant news in all of welfare reform.

WHO GETS THE CREDIT? THE GOOD ECONOMY VERSUS WELFARE REFORM

Some would argue that the positive effects noted above are the product of the robust economy during the 1990s rather than the results of welfare reform. However, the evidence supporting an economic interpretation of these changes is not strong.

Chart 3 shows the AFDC caseload from 1950 to 2000. On the chart, periods of economic recession are shaded, and periods of economic growth are shown in white. Historically, periods of economic growth have not resulted in lower welfare caseloads. The chart shows eight periods of economic expansion prior to the 1990s, yet none of these periods of growth led to a significant drop in AFDC caseload. Indeed, during two previous economic expansions (the late 1960s and the early 1970s), the welfare caseload grew substantially. Only during the expansion of the 1990s does the caseload drop appreciably.

How was the economic expansion of the 1990s different from the eight prior expansions? The answer is welfare reform.

Chart 3 does show that the national TANF decline has slowed appreciably during the current recession, which began in April 2001. Critics of reform might argue that this shows the state of the economy has been the dominant factor in the reduction of dependence. While it is true that the slowdown in the economy is affecting the decline in caseload, however, it is important to note the vast difference in trends before and after welfare reform. Prior to the mid-1990s, the AFDC caseload remained flat or rose during economic expansions and generally rose to a substantial degree during recessions. Since welfare reform, the welfare caseload has plummeted downward during good economic times and declined more slowly during the recession.

Thus, while the state of the economy does have an effect on AFDC/TANF caseloads, irrespective of economic conditions, the difference in caseload trends before and after reform is enormous. This difference is clearly due to the impact of welfare reform policies.

Another way to disentangle the effects of welfare policies and economic factors on declining caseloads is to examine the differences in state performance. The rate of caseload decline varies enormously among the 50 states. If improving economic conditions were the main factor driving down caseloads, the variation in state reduction rates should be linked to variation in state economic conditions. On the other hand, if welfare polices are the key factor behind falling dependence, the differences in reduction rates should be linked to specific state welfare policies.

In a 1999 Heritage Foundation study, “The Determinants of welfare Caseload Decline,” one of the present authors examined the impact of economic factors and welfare policies on falling caseloads in the states.20 This analysis showed that differences in state welfare reform policies were highly successful in explaining the rapid rates of caseload decline. By contrast, the relative vigor of state economies, as measured by unemployment rates, changes in unemployment, or state job growth, had no statistically significant effect on caseload decline.

A recent paper by Dr. June O’Neill, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, reaches similar conclusions. Dr. O’Neill examined changes in welfare caseload and employment from 1983 to 1999. Her analysis shows that in the period after the enactment of welfare reform, policy changes accounted for roughly three-quarters of the increase in employment and decrease in dependence. By contrast, economic conditions explained only about one-quarter of the changes in employment and dependence.21 Substantial employment increases, in turn, have led to large drops in child poverty.

Overall, the health of the economy in the mid and late 1990s did serve as a positive background factor contributing to positive changes in welfare dependence, employment, and poverty. It is very unlikely, for example, that dramatic drops in dependence and increases in employment would have occurred during a prolonged recession. However, it is also certain that good economic conditions alone would not have produced the striking changes that occurred in the late 1990s. It is only when welfare reform was coupled with a growing economy that these dramatic positive changes occurred.

August 8, 2012 – 12:46 pm Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Evangelical review of the question: “Was Ayn Rand right?” (Part 1)

Was Ayn Rand Right?

Article ID: JAF1324

By: Jay W. Richards

Synopsis

In response to the critics of capitalism, many conservative Christians turn to philosopher Ayn Rand for ammunition. Rand was a staunch defender of capitalism, but also an anti-Christian atheist who argued that capitalism was based on greed. Greed, for Rand, is good. But if Rand is right, then Christians can’t be capitalists, because greed is a sin. Fortunately, Rand was wrong. She missed the subtleties of capitalism. First, we should distinguish self-interest from selfishness. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, famously wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” True enough; but that alone isn’t a problem. Every time you wash your hands or look both ways before you cross the street, you’re pursuing your self-interest—but neither activity is selfish. Second, Smith never argued that the more selfish we are, the better a market works. His point, rather, is that in a free market, each of us can pursue ends within our narrow sphere of competence and concern—our “self-interest”—and yet an order will emerge that vastly exceeds anyone’s deliberations. Finally, Smith argued that capitalism channels greed, which is a good thing. The point is that even if the butcher is selfish, he can’t make you buy his meat. He has to offer you meat at a price you’ll willingly buy. So capitalism doesn’t need greed. What it does need is rule of law, freedom, and human creativity and initiative. And we can point that out without any help from Ayn Rand.

_____

If you’re over forty, you probably remember the 1987 movie Wall Street. Kirk Douglas played the key role, a ruthless corporate raider named Gordon Gekko. Gekko is famous for his defense of selfishness: “Greed…is good,” he tells a young broker. “Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all its forms…has marked the upward surge of mankind.” Gekko embodies the enduring stereotype of the greedy businessman.

Given the coverage of the current financial crisis, it’s no surprise that Twentieth Century Fox is now producing a sequel. Many people, including many Christians, believe that the crisis is the product of greedy capitalism—pure and simple. Others, including many Christians, want to defend capitalism, but end up drawing on the work of philosopher and playwright Ayn Rand, who called greed a virtue. That puts most of us between the proverbial rock and the hard place.

As if in response, some prominent evangelicals such as Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, and Ron Sider have criticized capitalism as based on the “greed principle” (to quote Campolo).1 And it’s hard to blame them, since even many fans of capitalism, such as Rand, seem to agree. And certainly for Christians, greed is not good. Greed, selfishness, or “avarice” is one of the seven deadly sins, and the Bible has nothing good to say about it. In the Gospels, when Jesus was asked to settle an inheritance dispute, He responded: “Watch Out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:15 TNIV). The Tenth Commandment says, “Do not covet,” which no doubt applies to greed as well. Jesus includes greed with murder and adultery in a long list of sins (Mark 7:21– 22). Paul tells the Ephesians that no greedy person—“that is, an idolater,” he explains—will inherit the kingdom of God (Eph. 5:5 ESV). These are just a few of the dozens of biblical passages condemning greed.

So what do we do? Must we embrace Rand’s anti-Christian philosophy to defend capitalism? Or must we reject capitalism because it’s based on greed? I don’t think we have to do either. The truth is much more interesting, and much more encouraging.

THE BEEHIVE

Rand wasn’t the first one to identify capitalism with greed. That honor goes to a Dutchman named Bernard Mandeville. In 1705, he wrote a poem called The Fable of the Bees. Nobody noticed it. So in 1714, he republished it with a lengthy commentary explaining that the poem was a metaphor for English society. Mandeville saw humans and bees as little more than bundles of vicious passions. The Parable reflected that belief.

In the beehive, different bees do different tasks, but they all have the same motivation—vice. The poem describes avarice, pride, and vanity as producing great wealth for the hive. The bees, however, are discontent. They grumble at the lack of virtue around them. They gripe so incessantly that Jove eventually gives them what they ask for. Honesty and virtue now fill the hive. And everything collapses. The bees’ virtuous actions led to disaster whereas the individual acts of evil had led to social good.

Taken literally, Mandeville’s claim is ridiculous. Good doesn’t come from evil. Virtue isn’t born from vice. Virtue doesn’t destroy society. Still, he did get one thing right: bad intentions don’t always yield bad results. Recall that the Apostle Paul once delighted that some were preaching the gospel out of envy of him. He didn’t delight in the envy, but in the preaching. So even private sinful acts may lead to a social good.

THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS?

After Mandeville came the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, who in 1776 wrote the most famous book in the history of economics, The Wealth of Nations. Though the book is long on pages and detail, its basic purpose was simple. Smith wanted to defend what he called the natural system of liberty: rule of law, unobtrusive government, private property, specialization of labor, and free trade. To prosper, a society needed “little else,” he said, “but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice.”2 But so far from flattering the business class, Smith famously said that “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”3 Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Smith never credited the happy outcomes of trade and business to the virtues of business people. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker,” he wrote, only to be quoted by every economics textbook ever written, “that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”4 Nevertheless, through the invisible hand of the market, individuals will “promote an end which is no part of [their] intention.”5 That end often benefits society overall.

If you don’t read Smith carefully, you might think that he’s making the same argument as Mandeville: individual greed is good for society. That’s a misreading of Smith, which was made wildly popular by Ayn Rand.

THEN COMES RAND

Perhaps more than anyone else, Ayn Rand not only identified capitalism with greed, but defended it in those terms. She even wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.6 For Rand, greed was the basis for a free economy. Capitalism and greed go together like fat cats and big cigars. To prevent readers from thinking she was using hyperbole, Rand went out of her way to espouse atheism and stridently denounce Christian altruism as antithetical to capitalism: “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible,” she said, “they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society.”7 In fact, she had a hard time distinguishing Christian altruism from socialism.

Rand was born in Russia in 1905 as Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, and immigrated to the United States in 1925, just as communism was securing its stranglehold on the Soviet Union. Her hatred of the collectivism she saw in her youth was etched into her worldview, her writings, even her strange personality. After coming to the U.S., she worked as a script writer in various Hollywood studios. The release of her novel The Fountainhead in 1943 made her famous. Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, made her a sensation.

In her novels, she developed characters that expressed her philosophy “of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”8 Her books read more like tracts for her philosophy of “objectivism” than ordinary novels. As Daniel Flynn puts it, “The themes of Rand’s four novels—We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged—are identical. As far as the philosophy of her novels goes, to read one is to read them all.”9

But for millions of readers, her books still inspire. I discovered Rand during my senior year in college. Her books were like a blow to the chest. She mercilessly skewered every leftist cliché that I had taken for granted. I found her bracing prose and iconic heroes attractive and repellant at the same time. For a few months, she seized me. I frittered away a week of my senior year reading Atlas Shrugged rather than studying for a German final.

The book tells about an elite group of creative entrepreneurs and inventors, “individuals of the mind,” who go on strike against a state that implements the communist principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” For Rand, these entrepreneurial heroes, like Atlas in Greek mythology, hold up the world. By pursuing their long-term self-interest, they create value for everyone. So when they shrug—that is, strike—society begins to decay.

The hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, founds a secret community off the collectivist grid, called Galt’s Gulch. Here in this New Jerusalem, individuality and self-interest are prized above all else. One long chapter of the book, “This is John Galt Speaking,” is nothing but a speech by Galt. It’s the perfect distillation of Rand’s philosophy.

Despite Rand’s official praise of selfishness, however, John Galt doesn’t look anything like Ebenezer Scrooge or that fat, cigar-smoking, tuxedo-clad guy in Monopoly. On the contrary, Galt is a pioneer, a brave creator of wealth who pursues his vision despite powerful obstacles, including a malevolent state bent on destroying him. In fact, although Rand despised Christian self-sacrifice, Galt is suspiciously Christ-like. He preaches a message of salvation, founds a community, challenges the status quo and official powers-that-be, who hunt him down, torture him, but ultimately fail to conquer him.

To be sure, there are dissonant notes. His symbol is not a cross, but the dollar sign. The book ends with Galt and his lover tracing the sign of the dollar across a dry valley. But insofar as Galt’s character works, it’s because he contradicts the miserly stereotype that Rand’s philosophy leads the reader to expect. In fact, not one of Rand’s best fictional characters fits her philosophy very well.

Rand convinced me that collectivism was a false moral pretense. She also taught me the importance of entrepreneurs in creating wealth. Rand knew, better than some economists, that you can’t have capitalism without capitalists. Rand continues to be popular with some conservatives, including some Christians. Based on my brief description of her work, that might seem unlikely. But the lack of robust moral defenses of capitalism has left a void. And for many, Rand has filled it.

That’s a problem, of course, since her philosophy as a whole is clearly incompatible with the Christian worldview. Fortunately, we don’t need Rand’s philosophy to defend capitalism. Capitalism and Rand’s defense of it are two different things. This is clear once you realize that Rand bought into a myth more common among critics of capitalism, that the essence of capitalism is greed.

notes:

1 Tony Campolo, Letters to a Young Evangelical (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 142.

2 Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. Edwin Cannan (New York: Modern Library, 1994), xliii.

3 Ibid., 148.

4 Ibid., 15.

5 Ibid., 485.

6 With Nathaniel Branden (New York: Signet, 1964).

7 Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: Signet, 1967), 195.

8 Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Random House, 1957), appendix.

9 Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York: Crown Forum, 2004), 200–201.

Related posts:

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 4)

Ayn Rand on the Purpose of Life Uploaded by prosumption on Apr 27, 2010 Ayn Rand on the Purpose of Life _________________ I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I have decided to […]

Christians welcome nonbelievers like Dan Mitchell in their criticism of Ayn Rand’s view of altruism

Nonbelievers like Rand really do not have an answer to the question “What is the meaning of life?” Ayn Rand on the Purpose of Life Christians are commanded to help others by Christ. However, many Christians do believe in the free market and think that system best suits the ideas that flow from Christianity. (Doug […]

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 3)

Uploaded by MetrazolElectricity on Oct 30, 2010 Talking to Rose, patron-saint of the conservative movement , Bill buckley chats about ayn and her magnum opus atlas shrugged. On atlas shrugged, WFB:”I had to flog myself to read it.” On ayn, WFB : “Her scorn for charity,for altruism was such as to build up an unfeeling […]

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 2)

Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jul 17, 2009 Questioned by Mike Wallace, Ayn Rand explains her philosophy of objective reality and contrasts it with altruism. _________________ I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I […]

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 1)

Uploaded by LibertyPen on Oct 26, 2009 Ayn Rand makes the case that altruism is evil. ___________________  I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I have decided to start a series on this […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
August 8, 2012 – 7:26 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Ranking the football teams in the SEC East in 2012

Here are my rankings:

In the SEC East it will be 1. Georgia, 2. Tennessee, 3. South Carolina, 4. Florida.

I really do think that Georgia has a big advantage with their schedule. They don’t play the big three in the West (Ala, LSU and Arkansas). Tennessee has the element of surprise on their size with that excellent passing game.

SEC: Very Early Predictions for 2012

 

By Braden Gall (@BradenGall on twitter) and Steven Lassan (@AthlonSteven)

Very Early 2012 SEC East Predictions

1. Georgia Bulldogs

Key Returnees: QB Aaron Murray, RB Isaiah Crowell, WR Malcolm Mitchell, WR Michael Bennett, WR Marlon Brown, WR Tavarres King, DL Arby Jones, DL John Jenkins, LB Jarvis Jones, LB Alec Ogletree LB Cornelius Washington, LB Michael Gilliard, DB Bacarri Rambo, DB Shawn Williams, DB Sanders Commings, DB Brandon Smith

Key Losses: TE Orson Charles, OL Cordy Glenn, OL Ben Jones, OL Justin Anderson, DT DeAngelo Tyson, CB/RET Brandon Boykin, K Blair Walsh, P Drew Butler

The story on offense should be pretty clear heading into 2012 for the Dawgs. Aaron Murray and a host of electric young skill players will return to a unit that has to replace its three best blockers. Can UGA establish the run better with an older, and more mature Isaiah Crowell, and new star Keith Marshall? The offensive line could be the only thing keeping Georgia from the national championship game.

If UGA does have a special season in 2012, it will be because of the defense. Todd Grantham in two short years turned the Dawgs into one of the stingiest units in the nation. And he has 10 starters back with elite level talent and depth at nearly every position. All-American candidates Jarvis Jones and Bacarri Rambo lead the way on the backend.

Special teams will take a big hit for Mark Richt as both kickers and return dynamo Brandon Boykin have moved on. However, the schedule is powerful reason why Georgia is the early favorite to win the East. Richt’s squad misses the three best teams from the West in LSU, Alabama and Arkansas — all of whom could be preseason top-10 teams. Trips to Missouri (to start SEC play) and South Carolina will be the toughest road tests of the year.

2. South Carolina Gamecocks

Key Returnees: QB Connor Shaw, RB Marcus Lattimore, RB Brandon Wilds, WR Ace Sanders, TE Justice Cunningham, DE Jadeveon Clowney, DE Devin Taylor, DT Kelcy Quarles, LB Shaq Wilson, DB D.J. Swearinger, DB DeVonte Holloman

Key Losses: OL Rokevious Watkins, WR Alshon Jeffery, DE Melvin Ingram, DT Travian Robertson, LB Rodney Paulk, CB Stephon Gilmore, LB/S Antonio Allen, C.C. Whitlock

Dismissing Stephen Garcia in the middle of the season might have been the best decision Steve Spurrier has made at South Carolina. The only disappointment is that new quarterback Connor Shaw didn’t get a full year of seasoning. The dual-threat quarterback played his best football down the stretch in 2011 and will welcome back the best running back in the nation when Marcus Lattimore returns to the field in 2012. Replacing Alshon Jeffery’s talent will be virtually impossible, but replacing his underwhelming (at times) production won’t. If the pass protection can improve, this entire offense has an opportunity to be much better in 2012.

Defensively, the front line has some holes to fill with the loss of Melvin Ingram and Travian Roberston, but Devin Taylor is back and Jadeveon Clowney proved his lofty recruiting status was totally justified. Toss in Kelcy Quarles and Carolina will have another stellar D-Line. Replacing some of the key pieces in the back seven, as well as the loss of coordinator Ellis Johnson, will determine if this defense can rank in the top-10 nationally once again.

The real issue with South Carolina, despite coming off its first 11-win season in school history, will be the schedule. The cross-over slate features a trip to LSU and a visit from Arkansas – two of the preseason top-10 teams in the nation. The schedule was the reason Athlon Sports picked Georgia to win the East in 2011 and a repeat decision is likely from America’s Premier Sports Publisher.

3. Missouri Tigers

Key Returnees: QB James Franklin, RB Kendial Lawrence, RB Henry Josey (injury), WR T.J. Moe, WR Marcus Lucas, WR L’Damian Washington, DL Brad Madison, DL Sheldon Richardson, DL Brayden Burnett, LB Andrew Wilson, LB Will Ebner, LB Zaviar Gooden, DB E.J. Gaines, DB Kip Edwards, DB Matt White, DB Kenronte Walker

Key Losses: WR Wes Kemp, TE Michael Egnew, OL Elvis Fisher, DE Jacquies Smith, DT Dominique Hamilton, DT Terrell Resonno, LB Luke Lambert, DB Kenji Jackson

The SEC’s other James Franklin enters America’s best conference with the potential to be an all-conference performer at quarterback. Whether or not his style of play can be effective against the extraordinarily talented SEC front sevens still remains to be seen. The good news is Gary Pinkel has plenty of talent coming back in the backfield and out wide for Franklin to utilize. But a great offensive line is a necessity to succeed in this league and how quickly this new group can gel will have the biggest impact on the offense. 

One look at the NFC playoffs in San Francisco and fans should understand how well Pinkel has recruited the defensive line. The Aldon-Justin Smith combo has proven that Mizzou has been one of the stronger Big 12 teams in the trenches since he arrived in Columbia. Brad Madison and Sheldon Richardson return to lead what should be one of the better units in the East — or at least one that is on par with Florida, South Carolina and Georgia. Can they hold up week-in, and week-out against SEC power rushing attacks? Only time will tell, but Missouri isn’t entering a new conference empty handed.

Hosting four of its first five conference games will help to ease Missouri into SEC play. However, the maiden voyage through the southeast culminates with three straight road games in three of the most hostile stadiums in the country: At Florida, Tennessee and Texas A&M. The second half of the year will likely determine if the Tigers are successful in their first SEC campaign.

4. Florida Gators

Key Returnees: QB Jacoby Brissett, QB Jeff Driskel, RB Mike Gillislee, ATH Trey Burton, WR Andre Debose, WR Quinton Dunbar, TE Jordan Reed, OL Xavier Nixon, OL Jonotthan Harrison, OL Matt Patchan, OL Jon Halapio, DL Sharrif Floyd, DL Ronald Powell, DL Dominique Easley, LB Jon Bostic, LB Jelani Jenkins, LB Michael Taylor, DB Matt Elam, DB Josh Evans, DB Jaylen Watkins, DB Cody Riggs

Key Losses: QB John Brantley, RB Chris Rainey, RB Jeff Demps, OL Dan Wenger, DT Jaye Howard

Another year, another offensive scheme. Will Muschamp hired former Boise State offensive coordinator Brent Pease as his new offensive guru. In case you are counting at home, that makes four coordinators in four seasons in Ganiesville. And Pease’s first order of business is to find a quarterback. Uber-recruits Jacoby Brissett and Jeff Driskel will likely compete for the starting job, but how do their skills fit with the new scheme? And can Pease find offensive playmakers to help out – which sounds unfathomable at a school like Florida. How quickly Pease settles into his new office will likely determine if the Gators challenge for an SEC title or lose another five games.

While the offense has huge question marks heading into 2012, the defense has all the potential to be a dominant unit. It finished eighth nationally against the run, allowed only 20.3 points per game (20th nationally) and returns NFL talent at every position. This team has a chance to be very stout in 2012.

There are few breaks, as is the case with most SEC schools, on the Gators’ schedule. Muschamp starts the year visiting a rebuilding Texas A&M team and a developing Tennessee squad. LSU also comes to The Swamp in October in cross-over play with a very tough but potentially manageable finish to the year: South Carolina at home, Georgia in Jacksonville and Missouri at home.

5. Vanderbilt Commodores

Key Returnees: QB Jordan Rodgers, RB Zac Stacy, RB Warren Norman, WR Jordan Matthews, WR Chris Boyd, OL Wes Johnson, OL Ryan Seymour, DL Rob Lohr, DL Walker May, LB Chase Garnham, DB Kenny Ladler, DB Javon Marshall, DB Trey Wilson

Key Losses: TE Brandon Barden, OL Kyle Fischer, OL Logan Stewart, DL Tim Fugger, LB Chris Marve, CB Casey Hayward, S Sean Richardson

Other than Alabama, there might not have been a fan base more excited about its program in 2011 than Vanderbilt. Much of the credit belongs to cult of personality head coach James Franklin — and a host of experienced seniors on defense. Finding a way to replace names like Marve, Hayward, Fugger and Richardson will be key for Franklin.

Ideally, an experienced and developing offense should help mask some of the holes on defense. Jordan Rodgers returns for a full season under center (and back-up Wyoming transfer Austyn Carta-Samuels is talented as well) and has all-SEC type players to work with in skill talents Zac Stacy, Warren Norman and Jordan Matthews. The offensive line won’t be a strength, but won’t be a weakness either as it is deep and beginning to develop experience.

The real reason Vandy fans are thinking bowl game for the second-straight season is the schedule. Like Georgia, the Dores miss the big three from the West (LSU, Alabama, Arkansas). However, Franklin and Rodgers will have to be ready to compete right out of the gate as South Carolina visits West End in the Thursday night primetime season kickoff in Week 1. Two non-conference road tilts with Northwestern and Wake Forest will also figure heavily into postseason play.

6. Tennessee Volunteers

Key Returnees: QB Tyler Bray, RB Marlin Lane, WR Justin Hunter, WR Da’Rick Rogers, OL Ja’Wuan James, OL Alex Bullard, OL Marcus Jackson, OL Dallas Thomas, DL Corey Miller, DL Jacques Smith, DL Daniel Hood, DL Maurice Couch, DL Willie Bohannon, LB A.J. Johnson, LB Curt Maggitt, DB Prentiss Waggner, DB Brian Randolph, DB Izauea Lanier

Key Losses: RB Tauren Poole, DE Malik Jackson, DE Ben Martin, LB Austin Johnson

There is a lot on the line for Derek Dooley in 2012. His career hangs in the balance as Tyler Bray and Justin Hunter return healthy as potentially one of the top QB-WR combos in the nation. There is loads of talent, and now experience, along the offensive line, so improving upon the 117th-ranked rushing offense will go a long way to keeping Dooley in Knoxville. Easier said than done.

Defensively, Dooley has an entirely new staff in place as he hired Sal Suneri from Alabama to run his defense. Like the offense, fans can finally point to talented, upside youngsters at key positions. Curt Maggitt and A.J. Johnson likely had to play too much as freshman, but went along way in accelerating the development process for the future star sophomores. The secondary has a lot of bodies and should be decent, but Sunseri’s ability to develop the front line will likely be the most important aspect of the defense. Maurice Couch and Daniel Hood showed consistency, but Corey Miller and Jacques Smith have the talent to be much better players. It falls to Sunseri, who developed stars like Rolando McClain, Courtney Upshaw and Dont’a Hightower, to turn them into the stars fans thought they would be as recruits.

Missing Arkansas and LSU helps this Tennessee team immensely in 2012, but will still have to face Florida, Georgia and Alabama in its first four SEC contests. The Vols likely have to reach seven or eight wins to save Dooley’s job and will undoubtedly need to pull one, if not two, upsets throughout the course of the season.

7. Kentucky Wildcats

Key Returnees: RB CoShik Williams, WR La’Rod King, OL Larry Warford, DL Collins Ukwu, LB Avery Williamson, LB Ridge Wilson, DB Martavius Neloms

Key Losses: WR Matt Roark, LB Danny Trevathan, LB Ronnie Sneed, S Winston Guy, DB Randall Burden

This team is in dire need of improvement in all areas. The offense failed to score more than 16 points in any SEC game in 2011 and topped 10 points in only two of eight games. Developing a quarterback will go a long way to making Joker Phillips’ group competitive once again in 2012. La’Rod King returns as the leading receiver and top offensive playmaker and blocker Larry Warford is a very talented start to building an offensive line.

Defensively, Phillips has to plug massive voids left by Danny Trevathan and Winston Guy. And with one of the toughest schedules in the league, finding defensive play-makers becomes magnified. Road trips to Florida, Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee packaged with homes games against South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt does not afford many chances for wins in 2012 for Kentucky.

August 8, 2012 – 7:19 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Who will win the SEC East this year in football? Possibly Tennesee!!!

I definately think the SEC West is the best this year in football. Just look at the last 3 national championships and where they have come from. However, they have lots of talent in the SEC East too. Let’s look at who will win that side of the bracket because the SEC West  champion (and eventual national champion) will have to win over them to advance up the national BSC rankings.]

Everybody would love to play Tennessee’s schedule in November: Nov. 3 Troy,Nov. 10 Missouri, Nov. 17 at Vanderbilt, and Nov. 24 Kentucky, but the truth is that you have to front load the schedule with tough teams in order to get the easy November.

NC State is beatable but the passing game is going to have to be clicking. Beating Florida is a possibility because I think they still have some problems down there. Alabama on the “Third Saturday of October” may prove to be a little more difficult.

I really do think this could be the year that things come together for Dooley. He got a lucky break when Arkansas was taken off the schedule for 2012. I predict a 6-2 record for the Vols this year and that may be good enough to win the SEC East.

Tennessee Volunteers 2012 Spring Preview

 

Can the Vols get back to a bowl game after missing postseason play a year ago?

By Braden Gall (@BradenGall on Twitter)

The journey to claim the 2012 national title begins in February, March and April, as 124 college football teams open up spring practice over the next three months. Athlon will preview some of the top teams and storylines across the nation, as the countdown to 2012 inches closer.

Tennessee Volunteers 2012 Spring Preview

2011 Record: 5-7, 1-7 SEC

Spring Practice: March 26-April 21

Returning Starters: Offense – 9, Defense – 8

Returning Leaders:

Passing: Tyler Bray, 147-of-247, 1,983 yards, 17 TD, 6 INT
Rushing: Marlin Lane, 75 att., 280 yards, 2 TD
Receiving: Da’Rick Rogers, 67 rec., 1,040 yards, 9 TD
Tackles: A.J. Johnson, 80
Sacks: Prentiss Waggner, 2
Interceptions: Prentiss Waggner and Eric Gordon, 2

Redshirts to Watch: OL Alan Posey, OL Mack Crowder, S Geraldo Orta

Early Enrollees:

Cody Blanc, ATH (6-1, 200), Knoxville (Tenn.) Central
Alden Hill, RB (5-11, 180), Alliance (Ohio) Marlington
Justin Meredith, TE (6-5, 225), Anderson (S.C.) T.L. Hanna
Nathan Peterman, QB (6-3, 210), Fruit Cove (Fla.) Bartram Trail
Darrington Sentimore, DL (6-2, 273), Norco (La.) Destrehan (Gulf Coast C.C.)
Trent Taylor, DL (6-2, 271), Lakeland (Fla.) Lake Gibson
Tino Thomas, DB (5-11, 195), Memphis (Tenn.) Melrose

2012 Schedule

SEC 2012 Schedule Analysis

Aug. 31 NC State
Sept. 8 Georgia State
Sept. 15 Florida
Sept. 22 Akron
Sept. 29 at Georgia
Oct. 6 Bye Week
Oct. 13 at Mississippi State
Oct. 20 Alabama
Oct. 27 at South Carolina
Nov. 3 Troy
Nov. 10 Missouri
Nov. 17 at Vanderbilt
Nov. 24 Kentucky

Offensive Strength: The passing game. Quarterback Tyler Bray and wideouts Da’Rick Rogers (maybe) and Justin Hunter form one of the most talented QB-WR combos in the nation. Toss in an elite recruiting class at wideout and tight end Mychal Rivera and the Vols boast one of the best passing attacks in the country.

Offensive Weakness: Everything else. The running game was seriously lacking last fall and will once again be an area of concern for the Big Orange faithful. Finding a feature back and linemen who can create holes will be the top priority for offensive coordinator Jim Chaney.

Defensive Strength: The secondary. At least, the depth and experience in the defensive backfield. Veteran Prentiss Waggner is on the move from safety to corner. The top ten DBs from a year ago return to Knoxville.

Defensive Weakness: The linebackers, and more specifically, the pass rush are a major concern. New coordinator Sal Sunseri will be installing a new 3-4 scheme and needs to find playmakers to fill the starting linebacker positions.

Spring Storylines Facing the Volunteers:

1. Dealing with the Dooley drama. Head coach Derek Dooley is squarely on the hot seat after two losing seasons in Knoxville. He dealt admirably with a massive coaching exodus (more on this in a moment) by rebuilding his staff with quality coaches. And for the first time in years, this program returns a deep, talented and experienced roster. The expectation to win has to weigh heavy on not just Dooley but every member of the Vols program. The circus surrounding his tenure isn’t going to slow anytime soon, so the quicker he can answer questions the better his team will be. 

2. Stabilizing and integrating seven new coaches into the program. With 19 starters back, it will be the coaching staff that needs to get acclimated, not the players. Chaney is still in place as the OC, but new running backs coach Jay Graham and offensive line coach Sam Pittman will have their hands full trying to restablish the dormant Big Orange rushing attack. There is plenty of talent to work with on that side of the ball, however, and the quarterback position is stable. With the implementation of the new 3-4 scheme, it is the defensive coaching staff that has the most work to do this spring. New DC Sal Sunseri brings an extraodinary track record with him to Knoxville in terms of developing linebackers — something that could be the difference between a bowl game and sitting at home this winter (and an employment check for everyone). Additionally, Sunseri and defensive line coach John Palermo will need to develop a scheme that can somehow put pressure on opposing quarterbacks (Tennessee finished 11th in the SEC in sacks, 100th nationally).

3. All of the above issues would be helped with much-needed growth and maturity from team leaders like Bray. Dooley and Sunseri can lead the horse to water, but it is up to the horse to actually drink. Names like Bray need take it upon themselves to prove that they can make others around them better by leading by example. The Corey Millers (currently dealing with academic issues) and Jacques Smiths need to live up to the massive recruiting hype and develop into every down performers. The last two seasons featured so much youth and inexperience, that mental mistakes — both on and off the field — were almost expected. This will not be the case in 2012 and it should not just be the coaching staff holding the team accountable — it needs to be the players. The star quarterback even admitted as much in his first media session of the spring, “Last year I wasn’t the smartest guy. Kind of dumb. This year I’m trying to get my act together and trying to get this team where it needs to be.”

4. Settling on a linebacker rotation and getting pressure on the quarterback is the top priority for Sunseri and Palmero. Smith seems to possess a perfect skillset for the Jack Back position, but will be pushed by Willie Bohannon. Youngsters A.J. Johnson and Curt Maggitt had quality first seasons, but have to adjust to the new scheme. Maggitt might be one of the biggest hitters in the SEC and is apparently loving his shift inside to the Mike position. His recognition skills now need to catch-up with his physical ability. He will be pushed by the contact-craved Herman Lathers, who returns after sitting out an entire year from a severe ankle injury. Former strong safety Brent Brewer, who tore his ACL in November, is gaining weight in order to play backer and also feels more comfortable because of it. Former fullback Channing Fugate might be making the biggest adjustment after being shifted to weakside linebacker. This was a thin position coming into spring and the shift to a 3-4 only puts added pressure on the depth chart. There are some nice pieces to this puzzle but Sunseri must implement a new system with players at new positions without wearing out his first stringers.

5. Helping the backers will be the new three-man front line. Maurice Couch needs to play the way he appears to be capable of more consistently on the interior. He has the ability to stabilize the front and allow for names like Miller, Marlon Walls and Daniel Hood to develop. Organizing this group will go a long way in helping to stabilize the totally reworked linebacker rotation. Junior college transfer — and former Crimson Tider in his own right — Darrington Sentimore might be the most intriguing new piece to the puzzle to watch this spring.

6. Dooley wants a feature back. There is only one issue – he may not have one on the roster. Marlin Lane is the leading returning rusher and might be the most talented, but is generously listed at 6-0, 205 pounds. He will most certainly split time with more physical Raijon Neal. Look also for diminutive sophomore Devrin Young (5-8, 171) to also get plenty of chances as well. Graham and Dooley know that 90.1 yards per game — where the Vols finished 2011, good for 12th in the SEC — is completely unacceptable in Knoxville. With another year of growth, an offensive line that has collectively become an upperclass unit together must develop into a strength for this team.

August 8, 2012 – 7:05 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Emails on Solyndra surface from Obama administration

The government shouldn’t pick winners and losers in the private market place like President Obama has done.

Lachlan Markay

August 3, 2012 at 12:40 pm

On Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a bombshell report, 18 months in the making and 147 pages long, detailing its investigation into bankrupt solar company Solyndra.

Along with the report, the committee released a trove of emails between Solyndra stakeholders and administration officials. They paint a troubling picture of efforts to prop up the company despite its bleak economic outlook, and reactions to the company’s eventual bankruptcy.

Scribe has compiled a list of the top 10 most revealing emails released as part of the investigation.

1. The White House Office of Management and Budget held that the Energy Department’s decision to restructure Solyndra’s loan was “a bad idea” and would result in greater taxpayer losses.

In March of 2011, DOE ignored the advice of White House budget officials and restructured Solyndra’s federally-backed loan, giving private investors priority in the repayment of their investments. DOE insisted that this would produce the greatest returns for taxpayers, but OMB officials, in a series of emails earlier that year, pondered ways to demonstrate to DOE that restructuring the loan would be “a bad idea.”

OMB analyst Kelly Coylar crunched the numbers, and found that DOE would lose about $141 million if it allowed Solyndra to go bankrupt and liquidated its assets. A restructuring agreement, on the other hand, could more than double taxpayer losses, she wrote.

2. White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley was briefed on Solyndra’s troubles before the Energy Department restructured Solyndra’s loan.

The eventual restructuring agreement may have violated federal law, according to the Energy and Commerce Committee. It is of particular note, then, that then-White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley was briefed on the possibility of restructuring Solyndra’s federally-backed loan before that decision was made.

3. President Obama’s Solyndra photo-op was then-CoS Rahm Emanuel’s idea.

Emanuel has repeatedly said that he doesn’t remember anything about the Solyndra loan guarantee process. This email shows that he was heavily involved in White House efforts to promote the loan guarantee, most notably by suggesting the president conduct a photo-op at the company’s Fremont, CA headquarters.

4. Even Solyndra’s investors knew that the company was a bad bet for taxpayers.

In an email to Lawrence Summers, then the chair of the White House’s National Economic Council, Brad Jones, an advisor with Solyndra investor Redpoint Ventures, said that while the loan guarantee for Solyndra would prove beneficial for Redpoint, “I can’t imagine it’s a good way for the government to use taxpayer money.”

5. Getting federal money was integral to Solyndra’s business model.

“Getting business from Uncle Sam is a principal element of Solyndra’s channel strategy,” wrote Tom Baruch, founder of Solyndra investor CEMA Capital, in a August 10, 2010 email. When government takes it upon itself to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, securing government funds can be just as lucrative as conducting standard business activities, which inevitably directs more resources into unproductive political activities.

6. Solyndra’s CEO referred to the federal government as the “Bank of Washington.”

Solyndra was quite brazen about its government-centric business strategy, as this email from CEO Chris Gronet demonstrates.

7. Solyndra was supposed to be a model of how government could empower the private sector.

In an email to White House communications staffer Dan Pfeiffer, Aditya Kumar, a senior advisor to the Vice President, said Solyndra exemplified an oft-repeated administration talking point on green energy “investment”: “When Government Plays a Part, it can Bring the Private Sector Along.”

Solyndra did bring the private sector along – all the way to its bankruptcy.

8. The White House and Vice President’s office pressured DOE to move on the Solyndra loan guarantee, which in turn pressured OMB.

In an August 28, 2009 email to Coylar, DOE official Steve Spinner, who headed up the Department’s Solyndra activities, said, “the OVP [Office of the Vice President] and WH [White House]” were “breathing down my neck” on the proposed Solyndra loan guarantee.

Spinner was trying to speed up OMB’s analysis of the Solyndra project to fit with the White House’s schedule, which had already set a date for the president’s Solyndra photo-op. OMB would later confirm that it had rushed its Solyndra analysis under pressure from the White House.

9. Upon news of the bankruptcy, DOE admitted it had “a serious problem at Solyndra.”

Despite numerous attempts since Solyndra’s bankruptcy to downplay the scandal, emails exchanged upon news that the company would go under reveal that the DOE knew just how bad the bankruptcy was. “We have a serious problem at Solyndra,” Susan Richardson, chief counsel of DOE’s Loan Program’s Office, wrote.

10. The White House’s reaction to Solyndra’s bankruptcy: “Ugh.”

The White House also knew that Solyndra’s bankruptcy posed a problem, as evinced by then-White House advisor Stephanie Cutter’s reaction to the news – in one word: “ugh.”

In an effort to downplay the scandal, Cutter has since insisted that Solyndra was “widely praised as successful and innovative.”

_____________
August 8, 2012 – 6:51 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

12 Questions for Woody Allen (Woody Wednesday)

Above is a clip of 12 questions for Woody Allen. Below is a list of some of his movies.

WOODY’S FINEST: Philip French’s favourite five

Annie Hall (1977)
In his first fully achieved masterwork, a semi-autobiographical comedy in which his ex-lover Diane Keaton and best friend Tony Roberts play versions of themselves, Allen created a new genre, the “relationship movie”.

Manhattan (1979)
Allen’s wryly comic film captures the magic of his home town with help from a fine cast, Gordon Willis’s monochrome widescreen images and 13 Gershwin songs. His pursuit of a much younger woman was to become a career obsession.

Zelig (1983) (above)
Dazzling satire on America’s permanent identity crisis in the form of a wholly convincing, wholly fake documentary about Leonard Zelig, a prewar celebrity known as the “Human Chameleon”. Saul Bellow, Susan Sontag and Bruno Bettelheim appear as witnesses.

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
Allen’s wittiest disquisition on love, life and death in Manhattan with a great ensemble cast that includes Michael Caine, Mia Farrow and Max von Sydow. The 1986 Cannes jury would have given it the Palme d’Or unanimously had it been in competition.

Radio Days (1987)
Taking as his model Fellini’s similarly episodic autobiographical Amarcord, Allen as writer-director-narrator looks back with warmth, wit and insight to the great days of sound broadcasting in the 1930s and 40s. A varied succession of often hilarious anecdotes bathed in a golden glow.

Related posts:

“Woody Wednesday” The heart wants what it wants”jh67

I read this on http://www.crosswalk.com which is one of my favorite websites. Life Lessons from Woody Allen Stephen McGarvey I confess I am a huge film buff. But I’ve never really been a Woody Allen fan, even though most film critics consider him to be one of the most gifted and influential filmmakers of our […]

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 6)

  “Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 6) This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: My son Hunter Hatcher’s 15th favorite song is “trouble.” Even though […]

“Woody Wednesday” Allen once wrote these words: “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.” jh31

Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7} […]

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 5)

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 5) This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: Hunter picked “Don’t Panic,” as his number 16 pick of Coldplay’s best […]

Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it jh55

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

“Woody Wednesday” A review of some of the past Allen films jh32

I am a big Woody Allen fan. Not all his films can be recommended but he does look at some great issues and he causes the viewer to ask the right questions. My favorite is “Crimes and Misdemeanors” but the recent film “Midnight in Paris” was excellent too. Looking at the (sometimes skewed) morality of […]

Good without God?

(The signs are up on the buses in Little Rock now and the leader of the movement to put them up said on the radio today that he does not anticipate any physical actions against the signs by Christians. He noted that the Christians that he knows would never stoop to that level.) Debate: Christianity […]

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 4)

Dave Hogan/ Getty Images This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: For the 17th best Coldplay song of all-time, Hunter picks “42.” He notes, “You thought you might […]

August 8, 2012 – 6:50 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 121)

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

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The stimulus did not work for the USA and it has never worked.

There’s an old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. This certainly is a good description of Keynesians, who relentlessly push more government spending as some sort of magic potion for the economy – notwithstanding a record of failure.

The latest example if Larry Summers, the former economist for the Obama White House, who says Europeans need to make government bigger.

Here is some of what he writes for today’s Washington Post.

European efforts to contain crisis have fallen short. …Much of what is being urged on and in Europe is likely to be not just ineffective but counterproductive to maintaining the monetary union, restoring normal financial conditions and government access to markets, and reestablishing economic growth. The premise of European policymaking is that countries are overindebted and so unable to access markets on reasonable terms, and that the high interest rates associated with excessive debt hurt the financial system and inhibit growth. The strategy is to provide financing while insisting on austerity, in hopes that countries can rein in their excessive spending enough to restore credibility, bring down interest rates and restart economic growth.

The good news is that Summers recognizes that there has been “excessive spending.” The bad news is that he uses the wrong definition of austerity.

Many European nations seem to think higher taxes are a sign of fiscal conservatism (see this post by Veronique de Rugy for a good discussion of this confusion). Summers accepts that approach, and says that policy makers should choose a Keynesian policy instead.

Unfortunately, Europe has misdiagnosed its problems in important respects and set the wrong strategic course. …Europe’s problem countries are in trouble because the financial crisis underway since 2008 has damaged their financial systems and led to a collapse in growth. High deficits are much more a symptom than a cause of their problems. And treating symptoms rather than underlying causes is usually a good way to make a patient worse. …The right focus for Europe is on growth; in this dimension, increased austerity is a step in the wrong direction.

There’s more good news. Summers is right in stating that Europe suffers from low growth. And I agree with him that the European version of austerity – higher taxes – is not a solution.

But, as always, there is a catch. Summers has the wrong approach on how to encourage growth. He wants Keynesian spending, and here is his defense.

 Skeptics will rightly wonder how a prescription for more spending by countries that already have trouble borrowing can be correct. The answer lies in the difference between borrowing by individuals and countries. Normally, an individual helps his creditors by borrowing less; but a person who stops borrowing to finance commuting to his job does his creditors no favor. A country’s income is determined by spending, so a country that pursues austerity to the point where its economy is driven into a downward spiral does its creditors no favor.

Sounds semi-reasonable. After all, everyone understands that it is important to get to their place of employment. Sometimes you spend money to make money.

But here’s the problem. Can anyone name anything in so-called stimulus schemes that actually increase a nation’s productive capacity? As we saw with Obama’s failed stimulus, lots of money gets distributed, but the main purpose seems to be buying votes and creating dependency.

What about jobs? A miserable failure.

Adding insult to injury, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that American taxpayers are supposed to pick up the lion’s share of the tab for the new spending in Europe since Summers wants the IMF to be the sugar daddy.

Going forward, the IMF and international community should condition further support not merely on individual countries’ actions but on a common European commitment to growth.

This approach is illogical, as explained in this video.

And let’s consider the historical record. Nations that have tried this type of “stimulus” have not fared well. Big spending increase under Hoover and Roosevelt failed in the 1930s. Japan tried several Keynesian packages and failed in the 1990s. Bush failed in 2008 and Obama failed in 2009.

Germany did not go with a big program of government spending, and they did better than the United States. The same is true about Canada. But the real success story is the Baltic nations. They imposed real spending restraint, not the fake austerity found in places such as the United Kingdom.

And even though it caused some short-term pain since there’s a short-term cost when labor and capital get redeployed to more productive uses, the Baltic nations are now in much better shape that the European nations that have floundered because they limited themselves to the no-win choice of Keynesianism and tax hikes.

_______________

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

Sincerely,

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

August 8, 2012 – 6:31 am Categories: Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment