Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Uploaded by Scott87508 on Oct 3, 2010 __________________ Some wise words below I got off the internet: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 The Infinite-Personal God: Thoughts from Francis Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason Perhaps you are familiar with the indie band Arcade Fire. Their […]
L’Abri : Sounds & Sites of a Shelter Uploaded by mdshivers on Nov 12, 2006 A fun video of the day in the life at L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland. I made this video in 2003 while there and I was trying to capture the sounds and everyday life of it. Was on the Labri.org site […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]
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 […]
Part 1 Part 2 Below is a summary of “A Christian Manifesto” which is a very important book written by Francis Schaeffer just a couple of years before his death in 1984. A Christian Manifesto by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer This address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian […]
Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]
___________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer is a hero of mine and I want to honor him with a series of posts on Sundays called “Schaeffer Sundays” which will include his writings and clips from his film series. I have posted many times in the past using his material. Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If […]
(“Schaeffer Sundays” Part 1) Francis Schaeffer is a hero of mine and I want to honor him with a series of posts on Sundays called “Schaeffer Sundays” which will include his writings and clips from his film series. I have posted many times in the past using his material. Communism has never been […]
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.]
With 18 starters returning you have to say that Florida has a chance to be a special team this year. I am not sold yet on their offense and if doesn’t improve then they could be in for a long year.
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.
Florida Gators 2012 Spring Preview
2011 Record: 7-6, 3-5 SEC
Spring practice: March 14-April 7
Returning Starters: Offense – 7, Defense – 11
Returning Leaders:
Passing: Jacoby Brissett, 18 of 39, 206 yards, 2 TD, 4 INT
Rushing: Mike Gillislee, 56 att., 328 yards, 2 TD
Receiving: Andre Debose, 16 rec., 432 yards, 4 TD
Tackles: Jon Bostic, 94
Sacks: Ronald Powell, 6
Interceptions: Matt Elam and De’Ante Saunders, 2
Redshirts to watch: WR JaJuan Story, S Valdez Showers
Early Enrollees:
Willie Bailey, DB (6-1, 167), Hallandale (Fla.) High Jessamen Dunker, OL (6-4, 320), Boynton Beach (Fla.) High D.J. Humphries, OL (6-6, 271), Charlotte (N.C.) Mallard Creek
Damien Jacobs, DL (6-3, 310), Scooba (Miss.) East Miss. C.C.
Antonio Morrison, LB (6-1, 209), Bollingbrook (Ill.) High
Sept. 1 Bowling Green
Sept. 8 at Texas A&M
Sept. 15 at Tennessee
Sept. 22 Kentucky
Sept. 27 Bye Week
Oct. 6 LSU
Oct. 13 at Vanderbilt
Oct. 20 South Carolina
Oct. 27 Georgia
Nov. 3 Missouri
Nov. 10 UL-Lafayette
Nov. 17 Jacksonville State
Nov. 24 at Florida State
Offensive Strength: On a unit that has struggled ever since Urban Meyer left town, is it okay to say none? There is still plenty of offensive skill depth and versatility, but none of those hefty recruiting rankings have panned out. It’s not to say that there is loads of potential, especially in the receiving corps. There is plenty of speed with Andre Debose, Quinton Dunbar and Frankie Hammond on the outside while Jordan Reed and A.C. Leonard were two of the most highly-touted tight ends in the nation. This group can only improve.
Offensive Weakness: Since this entire offense was “highly-touted” and has yet to stabilize in any sense of the word, really every position could be listed as a weakness. However, the offensive line could feature two true freshman this fall and therefore gets the nod as the biggest area of concern. But make no mistake, the quarterbacks or running game (or receivers for that matter) aren’t in much better shape.
Defensive Strength: All areas of this defense are supremely talented and return intact, but if one area is the strength it would have to be the defensive line. Fourteen players registered a sack last fall for Florida and 12 of them are returning, including six of the top seven D-Linemen. This is an active, explosive, versatile and extremely talented front line. Fans have high expectations for uber-recruits Ronald Powell, Dominique Easley, Omar Hunter and Sharrif Floyd.
Defensive Weakness: This unit is quite the opposite of the offense. With 11 starters returning, there really isn’t a glaring weakness. Finding tall corners that fit Wil Muschamp’s scheme might be an area of focus for the spring. Developing a physical Alabama-esque edge in the extremely athletic linebacking corps is important. And adding bulk up front are small areas of development for a defense that could be the SEC East’s most talented unit.
Spring Storylines Facing the Gators
1. Stablizing the offensive coaching staff had to be Muschamp’s top priority this offseason. With the hiring of former Boise State offensive coordinator Brent Pease to call plays, the Gators will be featuring its fourth OC in four seasons. Hardly stable. Yet, Pease helped develop one of the most prolific offensive attacks in the nation in Boise and is charged with the continued shift from Meyer spread to Muschamp pro-style. There are a lot of moving parts on the offense and figuring out how they all fit together needs to be done quickly if Pease expects to complete the transition to the more traditional power offense.
2. Finding a quarterback will be Pease’s main focus this spring. For the first time in nearly a decade, the Gators truly have no clue who will be the starting quarterback on September 1. Both Jacoby Brissett and Jeff Driskel are dripping with talent, arm strength and size. Yet, both are young, inexperienced and need development. Additionally, Pease has no loyalty to either as he didn’t recruit them to Gainesville. It is a quarterback competition in its truest form and the winner of the job will get the keys to one of the most prolific offensive programs in the modern history of college football.
3. Does there seem to be a developing theme with Florida football this spring? With a new coordinator and new quarterback, the next step for the Gators is to develop the offensive line. Both in pass pro and the running game, the Gators front line struggled mightily a year ago. So even though 50 starts return to the O-Line, Pease knows he needs an influx of young talent to advance this bunch. Look for incoming freshmen and early enrollees D.J. Humphries, who was the No. 1 offensive lineman recruit in the nation, and Jessamen Dunker to push for starting spots in the trenches. These two big-time recruits cannot be asked to step in and be stars right away, but if they can simply play effective football, it should press the incumbents to improve. For a team that finished 73rd in the nation in rushing and 105th nationally in total offense, it all starts up front.
4. Last but not least is the running game. If the new coordinator can design an effective game plan, the quarterback can protect the football and the offensive line can develop, it will fall to the undistinguished ball carriers to pick up the tough yards in SEC play. Ironing out who will be will get the lion’s share of the touches is completely up in the air. Mike Gillislee is likely the most dependable. Trey Burton might be the most physical (and best suited for a pro-style attack) but is more of a fullback and H-Back than tailback. And sophomore Mack Brown might have the most upside. Someone in the backfield has to step up after the loss of Chris Rainey and Jeff Demps — who didn’t really fit Muschamp’s desired power scheme anyway despite their success. All three should be pressing in spring camp as they may simply be keeping the seat warm for 6-foot-2, 213-pound star recruit Matt Jones (who is definitely keeping the seat warm for 2013 superstar Kelvin Taylor).
Dan Mitchell notes, “To make matters worse, the United States also has one of the most onerous death taxes in the world.” I just don’t understand why a person has to pay a death tax when he dies. If a person is a very talented pianist is he allowed to pass that teaching and skill along to his children? Parents should not be encouraged to spend their money on wild living versus building up their businesses for their children. How would that affect the economy to encourage people to divide and sell their businesses versus building them up?
Considering that every economic theory agrees that living standards and worker compensation are closely correlated with the amount of capital in an economy (this picture is a compelling illustration of the relationship), one would think that politicians – particularly those who say they want to improve wages – would be very anxious not to create tax penalties on saving and investment.
To make matters worse, the United States also has one of the most onerous death taxes in the world. As you can see from this chart prepared by the Joint Economic Committee, it is more punitive than places such as Greece, France, and Venezuela.
Who would have ever thought that Russia would have the correct death tax rate, while the United States would have one of the world’s worst systems?
Fortunately, not all U.S. tax policies are this bad. Our taxation of labor income is generally not as bad as other industrialized nations. And the burden of government spending in the United States tends to be lower than European nations (though both Bush and Obama have undermined that advantage).
But these mitigating factors don’t change the fact that the U.S. needlessly punishes saving and investment, and workers are the biggest victims. So let’s junk the internal revenue code and adopt a simple and fair flat tax.
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, the young Swedish writer, analyst and Cato Institute Fellow Johan Norberg travels in Friedman’s footsteps to see what has
actually happened in the places Friedman’s ideas helped transform. In location after location Norberg examines the contemporary relevance of Friedman’s ideas in the 2011 world of globalization and financial crisis. Central to his examination are the perennial questions concerning power and prosperity, and the trade-offs between individual liberty and income equality.
___________
I have enjoyed reading this series of reviews by T. Kurt Jaros on Milton and Rose Friedman’s book “Free to Choose.” I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
T. Kurt Jaros is currently a Master’s student studying Systematic Theology at King’s College in London. He holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science cum laude and an M.A. in Christian Apologetics high honors from Biola University, an evangelical Christian university outside of Los Angeles.
He enjoys learning and thinking about theology, specifically historical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, and issues pertaining to monergism and synergism. Additionally, he enjoys learning and thinking about political philosophy, economics, American political history, and campaigns.
This is part of a series on Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.”
In my previous post I explained the three ways a market economy naturally regulates prices in a way that is more efficient than a command economy. This is part three of a book series on Free to Choose by Milton Friedman.
Some people think the free market is full of greedy men who respond to monetary stimuli. But this isn’t the essence of a market (despite some types of those men acting within the free market). Rather, self-interest is “whatever it is that interests the participants, whatever they value, whatever goals they pursue.” This is why an economy is very much like any industry: science, linguistics, theology, etc. In each industry there is the attempt to build and grow the knowledge within the field, so that the bad ideas will dissolve over time and the good ideas succeed and live on.
So what is the role of the government in all of this? In a way, the government is like a market because people voluntarily choose what they believe is the most effective way of achieving something (like universal healthcare). Friedman points to local governments as entities where we can object to what the government does because we can move. And yet government is more than a voluntary cooperation of individuals because “it is also the agency that is widely regarded as having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force or the threat of force as the means through which some of us can legitimately imposes restraints through force upon others.”
Friedman cites three points from Adam Smith. First, a government has a duty to protect its people from violence and invasion from other societies. Second, a government has a duty to protect its people from people within the society (and to set up a system that administers justice). Third, a government should erect and maintain certain public works and institutions. This third point has been grossly misused to defend all sorts of government programs. “In our view it describes a valid duty of a government directed to preserving and strengthening a free society; but it can also be interpreted to justify unlimited extensions of government power.”
Consider the example of road building. The costs may be too high for any one organization to build roads and then collect tolls to cover their costs. Therefore we give this task to the government to handle. However, despite the benefits there are also costs, and often, unforeseen costs. Aside from poorly budgeted projects, delays and unions to work with, there are third parties that are affected. Parties that do not use the roads and would otherwise never have paid to use such a government program or institution. Friedman writes, “as a result a government attempt to rectify the situation may very well end up making matters worse rather than better—imposing costs on innocent third parties or conferring benefits on lucky bystanders.” Moreover, there is a greater risk with power for some of the citizens to take advantage of others. This is seen on the low-income end where people may abuse the system or on the high-income end where the crony capitalism takes place.
The lesson to be learned is that there ought to be a very clear cost-benefit analysis where the burden of proof is on the bureaucrats before any plan is implemented. Even still, “experience shows that once government undertakes an activity, it is seldom terminated.” Rather than its abolition, a license for more power and more money is granted. Today we are suffering under the size and power of the federal government. Some of us are suffering from the size of our state governments, too! We need to elect wise individuals who have a basic knowledge of economics and markets, who can understand that the government is not the solution to our problems, but the cause.
I must say that I have lots of respect for Reason Magazine and for their admiration of Milton Friedman. However, I do disagree with one phrase below. At the end of this post I will tell you what sentence it is. Uploaded by ReasonTV on Jul 28, 2011 There’s no way to appreciate fully the […]
Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2 Uploaded by PenguinProseMedia on Oct 25, 2011 Says Federal Reserve should be abolished, criticizes Keynes. One of Friedman’s best interviews, discussion spans Friedman’s career and his view of numerous political figures and public policy issues. ___________________ Two Lucky People by Milton and Rose Friedman […]
What a great man Milton Friedman was. The Legacy of Milton Friedman November 18, 2006 Alexander Tabarrok Great economist by day and crusading public intellectual by night, Milton Friedman was my hero. Friedman’s contributions to economics are profound, the permanent income hypothesis, the resurrection of the quantity theory of money, and his magnum opus with […]
Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 7 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]
Milton Friedman at Hillsdale College 2006 July 2006 Free to Choose: A Conversation with Milton Friedman Milton Friedman Economist Milton Friedman is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught from 1946-1976. Dr. Friedman received the Nobel Memorial […]
Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be his vice president was his biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman: Milton Friedman Honored for […]
Below is a discussion from Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. February 10, 1999 | Recorded on February 10, 1999 audio, video, and blogs » uncommon knowledge PRESIDENTIAL REPORT CARD: Milton Friedman on the State of the Union with guest Milton Friedman Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution and Nobel Laureate in […]
Milton Friedman and Chile – The Power of Choice Uploaded by FreeToChooseNetwork on May 13, 2011 In this excerpt from Free To Choose Network’s “The Power of Choice (2006)”, we set the record straight on Milton Friedman’s dealings with Chile — including training the Chicago Boys and his meeting with Augusto Pinochet. Was the tremendous […]
Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: 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 […]
Milton Friedman on the American Economy (5 of 6) Uploaded by donotswallow on Aug 9, 2009 THE OPEN MIND Host: Richard D. Heffner Guest: Milton Friedman Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77 _____________________________________ Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77: Friedman: […]
With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse.
The first step is to remove all welfare programs and replace them with the negative income tax program that Milton Friedman first suggested.
Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income.
Participants: Robert McKenzie, Moderator; Milton Friedman; James R. Dumpson, Chief Administrator, Human Resources Admin., NYC; Thomas Sowell, Professor of Economics, UCLA; Robert Lampman, Professor of Economics, Institute of Poverty; Helen Bohen O’Bannon, Secretary of Welfare, State of Pennsylvania
MCKENZIE: The discussion’s already underway here at the University of Chicago, so let’s join it.
DUMPSON: As I looked at the film, I had a growing sense of anger. Anger that that position failed to recognize that the system that was being attacked was necessary in our capitalistic, free enterprise system that by its own failure produces poverty, and therefore requires governmental intervention in the interest of those people caught in the traps of poverty. So, as I sat and looked at the film, and as I hear Dr. Friedman’s statement, I was aroused to the point, as I said, of anger because only half the story is told. We are really blaming again a victim, this time a system, the welfare system, for the failure of other systems to operate in the interest of people.
MCKENZIE: Let’s get other reactions now to that statement: “Trying to do good with other people’s money simply has not worked, the welfare system is rotting away the very fabric of society.” Tom Sowell.
SOWELL: My reaction was just the opposite from __ my anger was at what had been created in the city where I grew up, under very different conditions, during the period of capitalistic failure, during the period when there wasn’t this humanitarianism, and when it was possible for people to live better and to get out of that poverty. Now, I think someone who lived in the very same place where I lived would find it much harder to escape from that poverty because of all these things. Buildings were not abandoned like the buildings that we saw in that film when I lived in Harlem. The crime rate __ they’re all things that are blamed upon the failures of the previous method did not exist. I slept out on the fire escapes in Harlem. I would defy anybody to do that in any part of New York City today.
LAMPMAN: Traditionally in the United States we have tried to avoid some of the welfare trap that was referred to by denying eligibility to people who are able-bodied and not aged and so on. And we’ve therefore tried to close the welfare door to a good number of categories within the poor population. The second point that was emphasized and I think needs to be put in some perspective is that some, but not all, of what we might call welfare programs broadly, have this very strong take-back of benefits as you earn some more money and that I guess is what I would like to single out as the principal problem identified in the film but it is not common to any and all welfare programs that one might think of.
O’BANNON: When the family fails, when the private sector fails to create jobs at a fast enough rate you find that people are unemployed and drift into needing help in order to exist and the welfare system was created in the ’30’s to do exactly that. When the private sector, essentially, failed we have the development of a welfare system, and it’s not corrupting society, it is taking what society _ institutions have left behind: The family breaking up, the economy not expanding fast enough, the health system failing, the educational system not doing its job. We have untrained, unskilled people looking for jobs in a highly technical society or jobs that pay so low that people cannot in fact live at a decent level of humanity. I see the welfare system not corrupting, but in fact taking the remains and attempting to help people live in dignity.
MCKENZIE: So rotting away the fabric of society is not supported __ except perhaps by you, would you back that phrase or so.
SOWELL: Absolutely. You’re saying __ you’re talking about the failures of the other parts of society. What the welfare system and other kinds of governmental programs are doing is paying people to fail insofar as they fail they receive the money; insofar as they succeed, even to a moderate extent, the money is taken away. This is even extended into the school systems where they will give money to schools with low scores; insofar as the school improves its education the money is taken away, so that you are subsidizing people to fail in their own private lives and become more dependent upon the handouts.
O’BANNON: We have expectations built in today about the quality of life, the quality of jobs, the level if income for which one expects in return. Why? Because we look at the level around us that it takes us to have __
SOWELL: No, that’s not why. That’s not why. I may have all sorts of expectations, the question is: What can I do? If someone else is subsidizing my expectations, my expectations would be far higher. But insofar as the Center for Advanced Study was subsidizing my expectations a few years ago, I refused to work at UCLA for the normal full professor’s salary. Why should I when I can get the same money for being at the Center for Advanced Study with no hours, no duties and no classes.
MCKENZIE: Let’s look at another proposition in Milton’s case. The insidious effect on those who receive welfare. They lose their independence and dignity, are treated like children, and so on. Now, Dr. Dumpson, as a former Administrator of a major program, is that a great hazard?
DUMPSON: That is not a great hazard. As a matter of fact, that presumes that people get on welfare, stay on welfare, and therefore have the result that Dr. Friedman’s statement issues. The fact of the matter is that in our AFDC program throughout the country and particularly was this true in New York, there is a graduate __ a turnover of the welfare AFDC roles _ about a third of them go off each year. Now, if these people were so destroyed by the system, when they go off they wouldn’t go into employment, they wouldn’t hold employment, they wouldn’t stay off the roles for six months, eighteen months, twenty-four months, as long as they are able to stay off. So, there’s something wrong with that argument when one looks at people and what they do. People, you know, who are poor are no different from those of us who are not poor and their motivation for self-dependency, self-support and mobility in the economic scale is no different that those of __ than the motives we have, so that they will not let the system __ you remember, Dr. Friedman, the welfare rights organization who refused to let the system squash them down as it was attempting to do. We turned the policies around.
FRIEDMAN: You and I agree completely, that the people who are poor and are on welfare roles are no different from the rest of us. Of course not. They are human beings and they deserve every sympathy and every possibility of making their own way, but the welfare system makes them different.
DUMPSON: But you give them __
FRIEDMAN: It makes it in their interest to be different.
MCKENZIE: How do you account for them going off the roles, Milton?
FRIEDMAN: Oh, but figures are figures and you’ve got to be careful with figures. The fact that a third, there’s a turnover of a third does not mean that there aren’t half who are on all the time. People come on, go off; come on, go off. We’ve got to have the other figures __
DUMPSON: The latest statistic, Dr. Friedman, is that __
FRIEDMAN: __ fraction __
DUMPSON: __ 34 percent of the people on AFDC are on for five years or longer and when one thinks of the purpose of the AFDC program, which was the rearing and support of children, dependent children, minor children, I would submit to you that five years is not a terribly long time for a mother and children to have to be dependent if there’s no other source of income.
_______________
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
If you’re a taxpayer and you like beef jerky, I have good and bad news. The good news is that Jack Link’s is expanding the production facilities at its corporate home in Minong, Wisconsin. The bad news is the expansion is being “made possible” with a $365,000 federal grant to Minong for infrastructure upgrades.
The money comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant program. Curiously, the state’s Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation doesn’t mention in the press release that the money is coming from federal taxpayers:
The Village of Minong will receive a $356,000 Community Development Block Grant for Public Facilities for Economic Development from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) to help finance utility improvements that will facilitate the expansion of Link Snacks, Inc. Link Snacks’ expansion is expected to create 70 full-time jobs over the next three years…
The Community Development Block Grant program is a versatile financing tool for general-purpose local units of government in need of funds to undertake needed infrastructure and public building projects. The program is designed to enhance the vitality of a community by undertaking public investment that contributes to its overall community and economic development.
The WEDC was created by Republican Gov. Scott Walker to replace the state’s Department of Commerce and is modeled after Gov. Mitch Daniels’ Indiana Economic Development Corporation. Like the IEDC, the WEDC dispenses corporate welfare and engages in what I derisively call “press release economics.” Given that the press release doesn’t mention that the money came from the federal government, and thus makes it look like the Walker administration is responsible for the “job creation,” I’d say that the WEDC has learned well from its cousin in Indiana.
The bottom line is that it is not a proper role of the federal government to fund local infrastructure projects for the benefit of a business. The bureaucratic inefficiency alone of laundering money through three levels of government (from federal to state to local) is reason enough to terminate the Community Development Block Grant program. Unfortunately, the CDBG program creates a win-win situation for politicians at all levels, which means that taxpayers are going to keep losing unless enough voters come to realize that robbing Peter to pay Paul’s company isn’t good economics.
The all-time, most-viewed post on this blog is this set of cartoons showing how the welfare state begins and how it eventually becomes an unsustainable mess.
The great Chuck Asay has a cartoon that takes the next step, showing what happens when the looters and moochers who ride in the wagon get pitted against those who are pulling the wagon.
Since I’m not a Romney fan (for a bunch of reasons outlined here), I would have preferred if the cartoon didn’t imply anything about the current election and instead focused on the rhetorical question of what happens to a society when those living off the government outnumber those who get stuck picking up the tab.
It also would have been more accurate to have the two slave drivers somehow identified as “politicians” and the “IRS.”
But it’s a very clever cartoon, so it’s worth sharing even if I’m nitpicking.
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 […]
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 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 […]
Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [3/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) 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 […]
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. With the […]
Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth We got to cut these welfare programs before everyone stops working and wants to get the free stuff. The Bible says if you don’t work then you should not eat. It also says that churches should help the poor but it doesn’t say that the government should […]
Today, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that were the foundation of the reform law. The Obama directive bludgeons the letter and intent of the actual reform legislation.
Welfare Reform under Clinton
Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The underlying concept of welfare reform was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.
The welfare reform law is often characterized as simply giving state governments more flexibility in operating welfare programs. This is a serious misunderstanding. While new law (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) did grants states more flexibility in some respects, the core of the act was the creation of rigorous new federal work standards that state governments were required to implement.
The welfare reform law was very successful. In the four decades prior to welfare reform, the welfare caseload never experienced a significant decline. But, in the four years after welfare reform, the caseload dropped by nearly half. Employment surged and child poverty among affected groups plummeted. The driving force behind these improvements was the rigorous new federal work requirements contained in the TANF law.
Obama’s Trick to Get Around Work Requirements
Today the Obama Administration issued a new directive stating that the traditional TANF work requirements can be waived or overridden by a legal device called the section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315).
Section 1115 states that “the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements” of specified parts of various laws. But this is not an open-ended authority: Any provision of law that can be waived under section 1115 must be listed in section 1115 itself. The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, “mandatory work requirements”). Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115; they are not waiveable.
In establishing TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from the section 1115 waiver authority. They did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats. Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115. This is section 402.
Section 402 describes state plans—reports that state governments must file to HHS describing the actions they will undertake to comply with the many requirements established in the other sections of the TANF law. The authority to waive section 402 provides the option to waive state reporting requirements only, not to overturn the core requirements of the TANF program contained in the other sections of the TANF law.
The new Obama dictate asserts that because the work requirements, established in section 407, are mentioned as an item that state governments must report about in section 402, all the work requirements can be waived. This removes the core of the TANF program; TANF becomes a blank slate that HHS bureaucrats and liberal state bureaucrats can rewrite at will.
Congressional Research Service: “There Are No TANF Waivers”
In a December 2001 document, “Welfare Reform Waivers and TANF,” the non-partisan Congressional Research Service clarified that the limited authority to waive state reporting requirement in section 402 does not grant authority to override work and other major requirements in the other sections of the TANF law (sections that were deliberately not listed under the section 1115 waiver authority):
Technically, there is waiver authority for TANF state plan requirement; however, [the] major TANF requirements are not in state plans. Effectively, there are no TANF waivers.
Obviously, if the Congress had wanted HHS to be able to waive the TANF work requirements laid out in section 407, it would have listed that section as waiveable under section 1115. It did not do that.
Define “Work”…
In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. Now that the Obama Administration has abolished those standards, we can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work.
The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama Administration clearly guts the law. The Administration tramples on the actual legislation passed by Congress and seeks to impose its own policy choices—a pattern that has become all too common in this Administration.
Stimulating the economy comes from giving the private sector incentive to grow or in other words cutting taxes for job creators and not class warfare. Sadly we have had too many RINOS out there. The Tea Party is the answer for that. The liberal Arkansas Times blog runned by Max Brantley is upset that the Tea Party is making strides, but I hope they keep getting real spending conservatives in the Republican party. That is only hope or we will turn into Greece down the road.
I take the pro-market position in this special report on Fox News.
The discussion focuses on the following questions.
Does government spending create jobs? This is the discredited Keynesian notion that you become richer by switching money from your right pocket to left pocket, and I explain that this approach has never worked.
What does create jobs? I explain we need to shrink the burden of government and I cite my favorite Golden Rule about the importance of making sure the productive sector of the economy grows faster than the public sector.
Should there be more government workers? Anyone who has seen this video knows my answer to that question.
Is it a good idea to raise taxes on the rich? I argue that penalizing success doesn’t make sense, so class warfare tax policy should be rejected.
Would it help to impose higher taxes on corporations? Since the United States already penalizes companies with the world’s highest corporate tax rate, that question answers itself.
1. Stablizing the offensive coaching staff had to be Muschamp’s top priority this offseason. With the hiring of former Boise State offensive coordinator Brent Pease to call plays, the Gators will be featuring its fourth OC in four seasons. Hardly stable. Yet, Pease helped develop one of the most prolific offensive attacks in the nation in Boise and is charged with the continued shift from Meyer spread to Muschamp pro-style. There are a lot of moving parts on the offense and figuring out how they all fit together needs to be done quickly if Pease expects to complete the transition to the more traditional power offense.
