In this article below you will see that the American people do not want Obamacare but yet it is being crammed down their throats and all the regulations that go with that too. Sickening Regulation by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the […]
Gerard Matthews wrote on March 21, 2012 in the Arkansas Times: Children cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Young people can stay on their parents’ health insurance plan until they are 26 years old. Preventive services, which will ultimately help control health care costs, have been added to some plans at no […]
Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare In his article, “Medicaid and the consequences,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, March 20, 2012, (paywall), Brummett admits, “Medicaid will break the bank of state government if we don’t do something.” However, he never gets around to saying that Obamacare is going to ruin the state financially. It will expand this failing […]
On March 19, 2012 Jason Tolbert pointed out that the Democrats in Little Rock were using Obama’s talking points concerning Obamacare, but it appears to me that they go down with the ship according to the mood in the country. Take a look at this fine article from the Cato Institute. In this article below […]
Setting Biden Straight on Obamacare’s Anti-Conscience Mandate Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Mar 3, 2012 Vice President Biden didn’t get the story quite straight. As the Obama Administration reels from the backlash for Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate that forces religious employers to provide coverage and pay for abortion-inducing drugs, Biden yesterday set out to convince America that […]
It seems that government was in control of the desert then we would have a shortage of sand as Milton Friedman used to quip. You Keep Using the Word ‘Affordable.’ I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means. Posted by Michael F. Cannon The federal government gave a $10 million “affordability” prize […]
Uploaded by HarrysRetroArchive on Aug 7, 2010 The stooges join the “Women Haters” club and vow to have nothing to do with the fair sex. Larry marries a girl anyway and attempts to hide the fact from Moe and Curly as they take a train trip. Director: Archie Gottler Cast: Marjorie White, A.R. Haysel, Monte […]
Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Feb 22, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/ | The controversy over the Obama Administration’s anti-conscience mandate and the fight for religious liberty only serves to highlight the inherent flaws in Obamacare. This conflict is a natural result of the centralization laid out under Obamacare and will only continue until […]
Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Feb 22, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/ | The controversy over the Obama Administration’s anti-conscience mandate and the fight for religious liberty only serves to highlight the inherent flaws in Obamacare. This conflict is a natural result of the centralization laid out under Obamacare and will only continue until […]
Somebody will pay. You can bet on that. Obama’s Political Prophylactic Posted by Roger Pilon “White House compromise still guarantees contraceptive coverage for women,” reads theWashington Post headline coming out of President Obama’s press conference this afternoon. Trying to tamp down the escalating political storm his administration created three weeks ago when it ruled that, under Obamacare, employers with […]
_____________________________________________________ I would like to respond the idea of a single payer healthcare system by quoting from David Hogberg’s article “Free Market Cure – The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care.” He notes: A single-payer health care system is one in which a single-entity — the government — collects almost all of the revenue for and pays almost all of […]
The federal government screws up so many things it is truly amazing. I have been ranting and raving about the U.S. Postal Service on here over and over and over. Now it is time to move on to some other areas where the federal government is involved when they have no business being. (Read below how the Soviets were very impressed when Reagan put the Air Traffic Controllers union in their place. They looked at each other and said that their days were numbered if Reagan was that direct with them.)
The Washington Post today describes the latest near-miss disaster at National Airport, apparently the result of screw-ups by our government-run air traffic control (ATC) system. The Post notes that this near-accident is one of many troubling incidents in recent years:
…the near-collision was another among several thousand recorded errors by air traffic controllers nationwide in recent years. National has been the site of some of the most notable incidents, including one revealed last year in which the lone controller supervisor on duty was asleep and didn’t respond when regional controllers sought to hand off planes to National for the final approach.
News of the sleeping controller at National last year led to the revelation that controllers on overnight shifts at several other airports were napping on the job.
Is our ATC system is so troubled because it is
a government bureaucracy,
a monopoly that doesn’t face competitive pressures to improve quality, or
a union-dominated organization?
I don’t know the answer; maybe it’s all three. But news stories like the one today usually don’t mention the role of the unions, and newspaper readers may just conclude that the fault is simply one of a bumbling Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) bureaucracy.
However, I coincidentally received a letter in the mail today from an anonymous FAA official who points to some of the problems caused by the militant National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). He or she says that the “NATCA union holds the FAA management hostage and little is done to correct the problems … The NATCA union is too powerful and management is too intimidated to do their jobs.”
The letter writer may or may not have all his or her facts straight–the letter is here [PDF] so you can judge for yourself. However, I do think that the media could do a better job probing the role of unionization in the FAA’s substandard performance. People remember Ronald Reagan’s battle with the air traffic controllers, but that was just a blip in a much longer story. Unions have been creating problems for the ATC system since the 1960s, as I mention in this essay.
His most underestimated political achievement? In the spring of 1981 the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization called an illegal strike. It was early in Reagan’s presidency. He’d been a union president. He didn’t want to come across as an anti-union Republican. And Patco had been one of the few unions to support him in 1980. But the strike was illegal. He would not accept it. He gave them a grace period, two days, to come back. If they didn’t, they’d be fired. They didn’t believe him. Most didn’t come back. So he fired them. It broke the union. Federal workers got the system back up. The Soviet Union, and others, were watching. They thought: This guy means business. It had deeply positive implications for U.S. foreign policy. But here’s the thing: Reagan didn’t know that would happen, didn’t know the bounty he’d reap. He was just trying to do what was right.
President and Nancy Reagan with Ray Charles after acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Dallas, Texas. 8/23/84.
Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]
Ronald Reagan was my favorite president. Read this excellent article on his accomplishments from the Heritage Foundation: What Were Ronald Reagan’s Achievements? Julia Shaw February 3, 2012 at 1:00 pm February 6 is Ronald Reagan’s birthday. While the right has long looked to Reagan as the standard-bearer of conservative leadership, over the past few years, even […]
Unfortunately Hollywood has their own agenda many times. Great article from the Heritage Foundation. Morning Bell: The Real ‘Iron Lady’ Theodore Bromund January 11, 2012 at 9:24 am Streep referred to the challenge of portraying Lady Thatcher as “daunting and exciting,” and as requiring “as much zeal, fervour and attention to detail as the real […]
Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 16, 2010 http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/16/new-video-pork-filled-spending-bill-just-… Despite promises from President Obama last year and again last month that he opposed reckless omnibus spending bills and earmarks, the White House and members of Congress are now supporting a reckless $1.1 trillion spending bill reportedly stuffed with roughly 6,500 earmarks. ________________________ Below you see an […]
I have a son named Wilson Daniel Hatcher and he is named after two of the most respected men I have ever read about : Daniel from the Old Testament and Ronald Wilson Reagan. One of the thrills of my life was getting to hear President Reagan speak in the beginning of November of […]
President Reagan, Nancy Reagan, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton attending the Dinner Honoring the Nation’s Governors. 2/22/87. Ronald Reagan is my favorite president and I have devoted several hundred looking at his ideas. Take a look at these links below: President Reagan and Nancy Reagan attending “All Star Tribute to Dutch Reagan” at NBC Studios(from […]
My favorite president is Ronald Wilson Reagan. President Reagan with Nancy Reagan, William Wilson, Betty Wilson, Walter Annenberg, Leonore Annenberg, Earle Jorgensen, Marion Jorgensen, Harriet Deutsch and Armand Deutschat at a private birthday party in honor of President Reagan’s 75th Birthday in the White House Residence. 2/7/86. Milton Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” did influence […]
Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 7, 2011 Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy goal, one point is forgotten: Government doesn’t create jobs. Government only diverts resources from one use to another, which doesn’t […]
I really wish that President Obama would have not had the federal government buy up General Motors. We need to keep the federal government out of the private market as much as possible. This goes for the post office too. It should be in private hands. Senators voted recently to hold off closing some post […]
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. When you […]
When you look at how good the private enterprise does with deliveries and then compare it to how bad the federal government does with the same duties it is laughable. The answer to the federal post office problem is to encourage private entrepreneurs to fill the gap and provide competition for the post office in […]
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011, I emailed to […]
The Arkansas Times rightly jumped on Republicans for whining about the local post office branches that were closing. (It is sad to me that Republican Presidential Candidates are not very brave about offering any spending cuts.) The real answer is privatizing the post office. Here is a good article from the Cato Institute: The USPS […]
We need to close U.S.Post Office There is only one option in my view. We can not keep on losing money every year like the U.S.Postal Service (7 billion this year). Closing Post Offices PrintThe U.S. Postal Service just posted a $3.1 billion loss for the third quarter and the outlook for the rest […]
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 linked several of the letters I sent to him below with the email that I received. All these letters listed below include articles by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute. However, I think it was probably this one below:
The Rahn Curve and the Growth-Maximizing Level of Government
Government spending can promote economic growth if money is used for core “public goods” such as rule of law and property rights. But the burden of government spending in the United States and other industrialized nations is far higher than needed to finance such activities. Citing scholarly studies, this CF&P Foundation video examines the Rahn Curve, which graphically illustrates the negative impact of excessive government spending. www.freedomandprosperity.org
___________
These images are remarkably accurate. The welfare state starts with small programs targeted at a handful of genuinely needy people. But as politicians figure out the electoral benefits of expanding programs and people figure out the that they can let others work on their behalf, the ratio of producers to consumers begins to worsen.
_________
President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
When the government gets so big that it distorts the behavior of the private market then it is too big. The federal government is now spending 24.8% of GDP and traditionally for the first 150 years of our nation’s history we spent under 5% unless in wartime. This massive spending now by the federal encourages people to lie in order to get money for the government too instead of trying to work hard to earn money in the private market.
Why is big government bad for an economy? The easy answer is that big government usually means high tax rates, and this penalizes work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship. And perhaps some of the spending is financed by borrowing, and this diverts money from private investment.
That’s a correct answer, but it’s only part of the story. In most cases, there is added damage because politicians spend money in ways that further undermine incentives to produce.
For instance, let’s assume a government spends $1 billion on some sort of redistribution program. Extracting that money from the productive sector of the economy obviously will cause some damage, but it’s also important to estimate how the supposed beneficiaries of the money will react. What if they decide to earn less income in order to be eligible for the handouts, as even the statists at the OECD have recognized?
In other words, it hurts the economy when government collects money, and it often hurts the economy when government spends money. Sort of a perverse 2-for-1 special (though “Rahn Curve” analysis does show that some types of spending – on core public goods – is correlated with better economic performance)
Let’s look at an example from Greece, showing how handouts distort behavior and corrupt people. Here are some remarkable tidbits from a Wall Street Journal story.
The Greek health ministry is investigating on Zakynthos after local officials flagged records showing what they said is an implausibly high number of disability claims for blindness. About 1.8% of the island’s population of 39,000 claimed the benefit last year, according to the health ministry. That is around nine times the prevalence of blindness estimated for many European countries in a 2004 study published in a World Health Organization journal. Among those who put in for the blindness benefit on Zakynthos, a local official said, were a taxi driver and a bird hunter. …But the island is hardly alone, according to health ministry officials, who say fraudulent disability claims are a problem across the nation… Zakynthos Mayor Stelios Bozikis on a Greek television talk show said residents angry about the benefits crackdown and other financial overhauls pelted him with yogurt at a recent event.
Let’s go back to the story and look at a rough estimate of how much fraud exists.
In an attempt to root out fraud, the Greek health ministry recently required disability claimants nationwide to register in a centralized database, appearing in person or sending a representative. The registration resulted in 36,000 fewer disability claims than in 2011, the health ministry said. The ministry alleges these dropped claims were fraudulent, in many cases reflecting multiple claims for the same disability or payments in the name of dead beneficiaries. It also alleges that some doctors accepted money for false diagnoses and some local politicians signed off on the benefits to win support, and said it is giving public prosecutors information about areas where it suspects a high level of fraud. Only 190 of the nearly 700 people it says had been collecting the blindness benefit on Zakynthos participated in the registration, the ministry said.
I have no idea if Zakynthos is representative, but that’s an incredibly high fraud rate. And this is just a glimpse at the workings of one government program. Now multiply that by some large number and you’ll begin to understand the damage caused by government.
And America is not immune. When politicians make it easier to ride in the wagon than to pull the wagon (as this cartoon illustrates), society sooner or later gets in trouble.
____________
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
July 10, 2012
Dear Everette:
Thank you for writing. As President, it is my privilege to hear from Americans like you who take time to offer their perspective on the serious issues facing our Nation. I appreciate your message and value your input.
From putting Americans back to work to expanding access to medical care, my Administration continues to take bold action to do what is right for our Nation. We have enacted the most comprehensive financial reforms in decades, rescued and helped retool our auto industry, expanded student aid to millions of young people, helped level the playing field for working women, and made the largest investment in clean energy in our history. Because of the courageous acts of our service members, we have been able to end the war in Iraq and take down Osama bin Laden. We have also made historic commitments to provide for our troops as they return home. Securing our country’s future will take time, but I will not stop working to rebuild the kind of America where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.
I am always eager to hear ideas that will help our country adapt to changing times and lead us toward a brighter day. The enduring American spirit is revealed in the letters I receive, and I remain dedicated to ensuring it is reflected in our efforts to improve the lives of all Americans.
Thank you, again, for sharing your views. I encourage you to explore www.WhiteHouse.gov to learn more about the ways we are moving America forward.
Dan Mitchell on Austerity in Europe 2012 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 […]
I got this off the internet. U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000 New debt: $1,650,000,000,000 National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000 Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget Annual family income: $21,700 Money the family spent: $38,200 New debt on the credit card: $16,500 Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710 […]
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. If our […]
The Rahn Curve and the Growth-Maximizing Level of Government Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 29, 2010 Government spending can promote economic growth if money is used for core “public goods” such as rule of law and property rights. But the burden of government spending in the United States and other industrialized nations is far higher […]
Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 7, 2011 Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy goal, one point is forgotten: Government doesn’t create jobs. Government only diverts resources from one use to another, which doesn’t […]
The Economic Case for Tax Havens Uploaded by afq2007 on Sep 10, 2008 Statist politicians and international bureaucracies such as the OECD and UN routinely attack tax havens, claiming that they lead to “harmful tax competition.” Yet at no point do critics bother to provide any evidence for this claim. This mini-documentary from the Center […]
Sweden produced ABBA in the 1970′s, but now they are producing some pretty good economic policies. One of my favorite groups growing up was ABBA. Here are some of my favorite songs: _______________ 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 […]
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. You want […]
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.
At the time of its enactment, liberal groups passionately denounced the welfare reform legislation, predicting that it would result in substantial increases in poverty, Hunger, and other social ills. Contrary to these alarming forecasts, welfare reform has been effective in meeting each of its goals.
Overall poverty, child poverty, and black child poverty have all dropped substantially Although liberals predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6 million persons into poverty, the U.S. Bureau of the Census reports there are 3.5 million fewer people living in poverty today than there were in 1995 (the last year before the reform).
Some 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995
Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black children In fact, the poverty rate for black children is now at the lowest point in U.S. history. There are 1.2 million fewer black children in poverty today than there were in the mid-1990s.
Hunger among children has been cut roughly in half According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are 420,000 fewer hungry children today than at the time welfare reform was enacted.
welfare caseloads have been cut nearly in half and employment of the most disadvantaged single mothers has increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.
The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has come to a virtual halt The share of children living in single-mother families has fallen, and the share living in married-couple families has increased, especially among black families.
Some attribute these positive trends to the strong economy in the late 1990s. Although a strong economy contributed to some of these trends, most of the positive changes greatly exceed similar trends that occurred in prior economic expansions. The difference this time is welfare reform.
welfare reform has substantially reduced welfare’s rewards for non-work, but much more remains to be done. When TANF is reauthorized next year, federal work requirements should be strengthened to ensure that states require all able-bodied parents to engage in a supervised job search, community service work, or skills training as a condition of receiving aid. Even more important, Congress must recognize that the most effective way to reduce child poverty and increase child well-being is to increase the number of stable, productive marriages. In the future, Congress must take active steps to reduce welfare dependence by rebuilding and strengthening marriage.
PREDICTIONS OF SOCIAL DISASTER DUE TO WELFARE REFORM
Six years ago, when the welfare reform legislation was signed into law, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) proclaimed the new law to be “the most brutal act of social policy since reconstruction.”1 He predicted, “Those involved will take this disgrace to their graves.”2
Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund, declared the new reform law an “outrage…that will hurt and impoverish millions of American children.” The reform, she said, “will leave a moral blot on [Clinton’s] presidency and on our nation that will never be forgotten.”3
The Children’s Defense Fund predicted that the reform law would increase
child poverty nationwide by 12 percent…make children hungrier…[and] reduce the incomes of one-fifth of all families with children in the nation.4
The Urban Institute issued a widely cited report predicting that the new law would push 2.6 million people, including 1.1 million children, into poverty. In addition, the study announced the new law would cause one-tenth of all American families, including 8 million families with children, to lose income.5
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities asserted the new law would increase the number of children who are poor and “make many children who are already poor poorer still…. No piece of legislation in U.S. history has increased the severity of poverty so sharply [as the welfare reform will].”6
Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, stated that the new welfare law “places 12.8 million people on welfare at risk of sinking further into poverty and homelessness.”7
Peter Edelman, husband of Marian Wright Edelman and then Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services, resigned from the Clinton Administration in protest over the signing of the new welfare law. In an article entitled “The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done,” Edelman dubbed the new law “awful” policy that would do “serious injury to American children.”8
Peter Edelman believed the reform law would not merely throw millions into poverty, but also would actively worsen virtually every existing social problem. “There will be more malnutrition and more crime, increased infant mortality, and increased drug and alcohol abuse,” claimed Edelman. “There will be increased family violence and abuse against children and women.” Moreover, the bill would fail even in the simple task of “effectively” promoting work because “there simply are not enough jobs now.”9
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
In the six years since the welfare reform law was enacted, social conditions have changed in exactly the opposite direction from that predicted by liberal policy organizations. As noted above, overall poverty, child poverty, black child poverty, poverty of single mothers, and child Hunger have declined substantially. Employment of single mothers increased dramatically, and welfare rolls plummeted. The share of children living in single-mother families fell, and — more important — the share of children living in married-couple families grew, especially among black families.10
Opponents of reform would like to credit many of these positive changes to a “good economy.” However, according to their predictions in 1996 and 1997, liberals expected the welfare reform law to have disastrous results during good economic times. They expected reform to increase poverty substantially even during periods of economic growth; if a recession did occur, they expected that far greater increases in poverty than those mentioned above would follow. Thus, it is disingenuous for opponents to argue in retrospect that the good economy was responsible for the frustration of pessimistic forecasts since the predicted dire outcomes were expected to occur even in a strong economy.
Less Poverty Since the enactment of welfare reform in 1996, the poverty rate has fallen from 13.8 percent in 1995 to 11.7 percent in 2001. Liberals predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6 million people into poverty, but there are actually 3.5 million fewer people living in poverty today than there were when the welfare reform law was enacted.11
Less Child poverty The child poverty rate has fallen from 20.8 percent in 1995 to 16.3 percent in 2001. In 1995, there were 14.6 million children in poverty compared with 11.7 million in 2001. Though liberals predicted that welfare reform would throw more than 1 million additional children into poverty, there are some 2.9 million fewer children living in poverty today than there were when welfare reform was enacted.12
Less Black Child poverty The decline in poverty since welfare reform has been particularly dramatic among black children. As Chart 1 shows, for a quarter-century prior to welfare reform, there was little change in black child poverty. Black child poverty was actually higher in 1995 (41.5 percent) than in 1971 (40.4 percent).
With the enactment of welfare reform in 1996, black child poverty plummeted at an unprecedented rate, falling by more than a quarter to 30.0 percent in 2001. Over a six-year period after welfare reform, 1.2 million black children were lifted out of poverty. In 2001, despite the recession, the poverty rate for black children was at the lowest point in national history.13
Less Poverty Among Children of Single Mothers Since the enactment of welfare reform, the drop in child poverty among children in single-mother families has been equally dramatic. For a quarter-century before welfare reform, there was little net decline in poverty in this group. poverty was only slightly lower in 1995 (50.3 percent) than it had been in 1971 (53.1 percent). After the enactment of welfare reform, the poverty rate for children of single mothers fell at a dramatic rate, from 50.3 percent in 1995 to 39.8 percent in 2001. In 2001, despite the recession, the poverty rate for children in single-mother families was at the lowest point in U.S. history.14
Dramatic Reduction in Child Hunger The number of children who are “hungry” has been cut roughly in half since the enactment of welfare reform, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA reports that in 1995, the year before welfare reform was enacted, 887,000 children were hungry; by 2001, the number had fallen to 467,000.15 In percentage terms, the numbers fell from 1.3 percent of children in 1995 to 0.6 percent in 2001. Overall, there are more than 400,000 fewer hungry children today than at the time welfare reform was enacted. (See Chart 2.)
Decrease in “Severe poverty” Liberals predicted that welfare reform would increase “the severity of poverty.” However, the number of children living in “deep poverty” has declined appreciably. (Families in “deep poverty” have incomes that are less than half the poverty income level.) In 1995, there were 5.9 million children living in deep poverty; by 2001, the number had fallen to 5.1 million.16
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.
Friedman: Joe Gardner helped to set up an organization of local black people to protect their own interests. Previously, the blacks had rioted in the streets to try to get their way. Now it was to be done peacefully using government money.
When government funds became available, the Woodlawn Organization got control. They used them to build the kind of houses they wanted. Low rise apartments like these.
The bureaucrats, planners and architects told them that it was uneconomical. That only high-rise blocks would work. They were wrong.
Joe Gardner: A lot of people have this view that, the disadvantaged if you will, have no ideas what their problems are and how to resolve them, that it takes outside professionals to do that. And we say that’s baloney because the outside professional does not feel in his gut what a woman on welfare with six kids living off of a $100 a month in a deteriorated building feels. She can come up with solutions much better than a bureaucrat.
Friedman: The intentions of this local community group are good. They want to rebuild the community as the community wants.
Joe Gardner talking to an elderly woman: I can’t hear you. I said are you pretty pleased with the work we are doing? Yes I am very pleased with it.
Friedman: But government money always corrupts. Look at the number of people rebuilding this garage. It doesn’t make sense except that these are CETA workers paid for by taxpayers money.
Government funds have allowed the organization to take over a whole area of Chicago. They now have their own supermarket.
They’ve built splendid houses for middle class occupiers. Very expensive, protected by the latest security systems. All at the taxpayers expense.
Joe Gardner: In a sense TWA is rapidly becoming a mini-government. At this particular point we have approximately 400 employees. We have an operating budget of, in excess of $5 million per year. So we are large.
Friedman: Large and expanding. Their next project is to redevelop this site. And that’s only the first step in a 20 year plan that will cost $220 million. Most of it coming from the taxpayers.
In the South Bronx, they are very familiar with government protection. Like the rent controls have made it uneconomic for landlords to maintain their buildings. They’ve moved out and the vandals have moved in. The South Bronx is an area where many of the people are on welfare, and where the crime rate is high. But all this could change. A group of local people has begun to renovate these buildings to build new homes. They call themselves “Sweat Equity.” Because at first sweat and effort was all they could put into the project. Only later did they accept a small government grant.
Friedman and Robert Foster: How long ago did you start working on this building? Four months ago for this building right here. And I take it what you are going…to gut the whole thing from beginning to end. Totally gut it. And you’ll have to rewire, right, roof, put new walls up, new floors, new ceilings, new everything in winter and summer whenever there was a chance to work. How many people do you have working here? A good 40 people. How do you keep them working? You know, some of them must want to, get tired of it. We show them what can be done in the future and what will be done in the future. And they get, at first, it’s kind of hard to prove to somebody that in the next three or four years what will come out of it. They can’t see it in long range terms. They only see it in short, they need money right now, not in two years. So we try to show them that it will happen.
Friedman: It’s true they now accept some government money. But so far they’ve managed to retain their original philosophy. That the best way to get something done well is to do it yourself.
Robert Foster: Like what we’re doing. We’re bringing people out of the street and giving them something to look forward to. They have their own apartment, they’ll be taken care of, the area around it, they have a garden, they have something to look forward to. They even get off welfare, you even give them a job. They can drop the welfare and have some self pride. That’s the only thing about it, self pride. The longer you take from the government and sitting back, you’ve got no worries. We’re not sitting back, we’re working. We’re making our money come in. And we are putting it into our building, we’re building ourselves up as well as the buildings.
Friedman: Some of these people are CETA workers. Paid for by the taxpayer. But this isn’t as useful as it might appear.
You ask these fellows which would they rather have, the CETA workers or the money that’s being paid to the CETA workers? Laughter. Which would you rather have?
Robert Foster: The money paid to the workers. Friedman: That’s your answer. That’s very expensive help. In terms of what these people could use with the money. You give these people the amount of money you’re paying to that CETA worker and I’ll bet they’ll have twice as much, three times as much, work. Am I wrong?
Robert Foster: Your right.
Friedman: So it’s a very inefficient way to use their money. The problem is you’ve got bureaucracy and the government bureaucrats, they want to decide what to do. They don’t want to let you decide what to do.
Robert Foster: Exactly.
Friedman: Ask yourself, how does this place get built up in the first place. After all, this was a pretty respectable, solid, substantial region when it was first developed. It wasn’t done through a government project. It was done by people individually having an incentive to put up these buildings and occupying them. What these people we’ve been seeing here are doing is they are trying to restore that feeling and that attitude. You’ll have a far healthier community here that grows out of the self-help of people like the people we’ve been talking to. That it is a paternalistic venture undertaken by governmental civil servants and bureaucrats who have to plan on a large scale for other people.
We must find a way to give everyone caught in the welfare trap the kind of initiative these people have.
The best, or should I say the least bad, solution I have even been able to devise was something called the negative income tax. This is the idea that we should get rid of a large part of the welfare bureaucracy, and for demeaning rules, and we should help people who are poor fundamentally by giving them money.
With a positive income tax, you’re entitled to a certain amount of personal exemptions and deductions. And above that amount you pay tax. But suppose you have no income. Under a negative income tax a fraction of your unused exemptions would be paid to you by the government. Guaranteeing at least a minimum income.
If you earned something, you’d still get a fraction of your unused exemptions. And you’d end up better off.
As your earnings rose, the supplement to your income would become smaller and smaller until your earnings equaled your exemptions. At that point, you’d break even. Neither paying tax nor receiving a subsidy.
It’s not an ideal system. It’s not the system we might have liked to get into, but it’s a system which would have the effect of eliminating the separation of a society into those to receive and those who pay. A separation that tends to destroy the whole social fabric. It would mean that we could each of us take advantage of opportunities that opened up without fearing that if by some chance we lost our jobs, it would be a long time before we could get back on assistance. It would be a system that would give all of us an incentive gradually to improve our lives would perhaps enable us, over time, to work ourselves out of the kind of mess we’ve gotten ourselves into. A mess we’ve gotten ourselves into for the very best of motives but with the very worst of results.
We’ve become increasing dependent on government. We’ve surrendered power to government, nobody has taken it from us. It’s our doing. The results, monumental government spending. Much of it wasted, little of it going to the people whom we would like to see helped. Burdensome taxes, high inflation, a welfare system under which neither those who receive help nor those who pay for it are satisfied. Trying to do good with other people’s money simply has not worked.
_______________
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
Arkansas wide receiver Joe Adams runs back a punt for a touchdown against Tennessee at Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville on Nov. 12, 2011. (AMY SMOTHERMAN BURGESS/NEWS SENTINEL)
It appears the Tennessee Vols are very happy about one thing this coming season: THEY DON’T HAVE TO PLAY THE HOGS!!!!
John Adams noted:
Thanks to SEC expansion, the Vols won’t have to play Arkansas, which won 49-7 last season in Fayetteville and still has plenty of talent. Replacing the Razorbacks with Missouri is another plus for UT.
I totally agree with that point. Last year Tennessee is the only team in college football history besides Iowa St back in 1971 who had to play the top 3 ranked teams in the nation in one season as far as I know. (The only reason I knew about Iowa St was because Johnny Majors was the coach at Iowa St back then and he told that to the Little Rock Touchdown Club when he spoke here.)
Last year the Vols played 1. LSU, 2. Alabama and 3. Arkansas by the time they came to Fayetteville last year to play the third ranked Hogs.
The SEC caught itsbasketballcoaches off guard recently when it emailed them changes to the conference schedule that was supposedly set at June’s spring meetings. Imagine if it did the same thing infootball.
SEC commissioner Mike Slive would have to spend the rest of the day on the phone with football coaches, some of whom would have to be talked down from ledges.
The conference schedule matters in basketball. It matters so much more in football.
It’s not just whom you play outside your division. It’s when you play them.
Even open dates can be a source of anguish in football. Just a couple of years ago, Alabama officials spent the offseason whining about a conference schedule that gave so many of its opponents the week off before Alabama.
South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier has spent this offseason throwing darts at both the last conference schedule and the one to come. His point: Georgia won the East through scheduling and could win it again the same way.
Tennessee has no such complaints. The scheduling advantage gained from last season to this one is significant.
The Vols didn’t finish 5-7 last season solely through inept play. They played three of the top five teams in the country — all from the SEC West. And the open date, just three games into the season, provided no cushion.
Never mind how much UT might have improved from last season to this one through experience and recruiting. Its acquired advantage in scheduling could be just as much of a factor in what should be a much-improved record.
The only disadvantage might come against its one non-conference BCS opponent. Playing N.C. State in the season opener in the Georgia Dome is more challenging than playing
Cincinnati in the second game last season at Neyland Stadium. The rest of the non-conference fare is comparable to last season’s threesome, which Tennessee outscored 107-26.
But look how much the Vols will benefit elsewhere.
Thanks to SEC expansion, the Vols won’t have to play Arkansas, which won 49-7 last season in Fayetteville and still has plenty of talent. Replacing the Razorbacks with Missouri is another plus for UT.
The natural rotation of the conference schedule will offer another advantage. National championship contender LSU is off; middle-of-the road Mississippi State is on.
The open date also will work in UT’s favor. Last season, the Vols had to play four consecutive games against nationally ranked opponents — Georgia, LSU, Alabama and South Carolina — without a break. The 2012 schedule includes well-timed breaks.
The Vols will play Georgia State before Florida, and Akron afterward. The Georgia game is sandwiched between Akron and an open date. Troy will break up games against South Carolina and Missouri.
That leaves the last three weeks of October as the toughest stretch of the season. But at least the Vols will have an open date the Saturday before they play Mississippi State, Alabama and South Carolina in succession.
One more advantage: Tennessee won’t have to play Kentucky at Commonwealth Stadium this season.
Tenn Football Coach Derek Dooley’s Mom on the Radio Uploaded by jebusfubar4 on Oct 7, 2011 I really enjoyed hearing Vince Dooley speak a couple of years ago at the Little Rock Touchdown Club and he said that his son Derek would do a good job at Tennessee if given enough time. Evidently Derek’s mom […]
Bobby Petrino and Jessica Dorrell I was so happy a few months ago with the Razorbacks’ football future firmly in Bobby Petrino’s hands. Things were going so well. I mentioned to a friend that I was 16 back in 1977 when Lou Holtz led the Razorbacks that season to a 11-1 record and a third […]
I think that Derek Dooley has the biggest rebuilding of the coaches mentioned below. I heard Vince Dooley speak at the Little Rock Touchdown Club meeting in October of 2010 and he said that his son inherited a program that had been set back by defections. In fact, I read recently that the great recruiting […]
My son Wilson and I went to the Tennessee Vols at Arkansas Razorback game in Fayetteville last year. During a restroom stop in Ozark, Arkansas I got to hear a lot of Tennessee fans talking. One said that Dooley will be gone at the end of 2011 and the other said that they have to […]
Photo by Saul Young The fears surrounding the week after Alabama were realized in 2005 when the Vols lost to South Carolina on a night when the jersey of former Tennessee quarterback Peyton Manning, center, was retired. _________________ “It wasn’t his decision. It wasn’t my decision. Circumstances kind of dictated it,” Manning said. Manning did […]
I am glad that Petrino got more defensive players than offensive players but time will tell if he can develop these three star players like he did in 2008 when that class later turned the hogs into a national contender in 2011. Below is an article from http://www.ajc.com Alabama (26): The national champs added to their […]
I have noticed that Arkansas never seems to have great recruiting years like Tennessee and Florida and Alabama do. However, the 2008 class that will graduate in 2012 for Arkansas included some great players like Joe Adams and has been re-ranked as the 5th best performing class. That class led Arkansas to a final ranking […]
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) visited Heritage yesterday and sat down to talk about the high price of gasoline and why more energy production is the answer.
The House of Representatives did pass the bill that the Congressman is talking about but the Senate killed it. H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011
The bill would eliminate needless permitting delays that have stalled important energy production opportunities off the coast of Alaska. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly approved and rescinded by the agency and its review board, the EPA will be required to take final action – granting or denying a permit – within six months. The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 would speed up the permit process to help create jobs.
________________
President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Liberals like Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog have always been critical of any votes that would encourage more oil exploration in Alaska, but it is time to do so. We have to get these gas prices down. Take a look at this fine article from the Heritage Foundation:
There are an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped in the Arctic Ocean, off the coast of Alaska. But after spending five years and nearly $4 billion, Shell Oil Company has been forced to abandon its efforts to drill for oil in the region.
With gas at $4 per gallon and higher, one might think that more oil would be a good thing. So what’s the road block? The Environmental Protection Agency. Fox News reports that the EPA is withholding necessary air permits because of a one square mile village of 245 people, 70 miles from the off-shore drilling site. From Fox News’ Dan Springer:
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.
“What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell’s drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards,” said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice’s lead attorney on the case.
The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator.
President Barack Obama said in his weekly address on Saturday that “there’s no silver bullet that can bring down gas prices right away,” but that one thing America can do is pursue “safe and responsible production of oil at home.” Too bad his words and his actions are not one and the same. Aside for the EPA’s decision on Shell, the Obama administration has imposed a months-long moratorium on deepwater offshore drilling that curtailed domestic production and sent some seven drilling rigs elsewhere.
The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris recommends the following actions for Congress and President Obama if they truly want to expand access to America’s domestic energy supply:
Allow access to domestic reserves. Permitting exploration of reserves in Alaska, Colorado, Wyoming, and federal waters offshore would inject confidence into the market, create jobs, and stimulate the economy.
Roll back regulatory burdens on companies. Strapping companies with onerous regulatory processes only hinders access. Litigation opportunities should be limited and the permitting process made more rational.
Issue offshore drilling permits. Lifting the de facto moratorium on offshore drilling permits would gain companies access to domestic resources and increase our domestic energy supply.
Now it’s your turn. What do you think about the EPA’s decision? Join in the conversation by leaving a comment below.
____________
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 follow us on twitter then you won’t get overloaded. I tweet about 5 times a week and include links to my blog of the day. Tweets 51s thedailyhatchorg @everettehatcher The Founding Fathers believed that our leaders should believe in the afterlife and future rewards and punishments. https://thedailyhatch.org/2012/07/11/the … I got an email from […]
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison delivered remarks regarding her landmark proposal on entitlement reform, the Defend and Save Social Security Act at the Heritage Foundation’s “Saving Social Security” event. Sen. Hutchison announced that Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), member of Biden’s budget working group, has lent his support of her bill as the original cosponsor. At her press conference last week, Sen. Hutchison unveiled her Social Security proposal, and today she reiterated the urgency of putting Social Security on the table in the Biden budget group discussions. Sen. Hutchison sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden last week urging him to incorporate Social Security reform in the ongoing deficit reduction debates that he is leading.
____________________
President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
There are two serious problems with America’s Social Security system. Almost everyone knows about the first problem, which is that the system is bankrupt, with huge unfunded liabilities of about $30 trillion.
The other crisis is that the system gives workers a lousy level of retirement income compared to the amount of taxes they pay during their working years. Younger workers are particularly disadvantaged, as are African-Americans because of lower life expectancy.
These are critical issues, but perhaps looking at a couple of charts is the best way to illustrate why the Social Security system is inadequate.
This system, which was made universal by the Labor Party beginning in the 1980s, has turned every Australian worker into a capitalist and generated private wealth of nearly 100 percent of GDP. Here’s a chart, based on data from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.
Now let’s look at one of the key numbers generated by America’s tax-and-transfer entitlement system. Here’s a chart showing the projected annual cash-flow deficits for the Social Security system, based on the just-released Trustees’ Report.
By the way, the chart shows inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars. The numbers would look far worse if I used the nominal numbers.
The two charts aren’t analogous, of course, but that’s because there’s nothing to compare. The Social Security system has no savings. Indeed, it discourages people from setting aside income.
And Australia’s superannuation system doesn’t have anything akin to America’s unfunded liabilities. The closest thing to an analogy would be the safety net provision guaranteeing a basic pension to people with limited savings (presumably because of a spotty employment record).
So now ask yourself whether Australia should copy America or America should copy Australia? Seems like a no-brainer.
___________
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
THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________
HEFFNER: Indeed. You know, I was thinking about, before we began to do this program, I was thinking about where is it written. And I was considering going back to a very ancient civilization, mostly in terms of the reports that we have that you may in your visits to Israel advise the new Israeli government in terms of its economic problems. And I wanted to ask you a question. I wanted to ask you a question about a remark that I had heard you make in connection with this story about the role you might play in relation to the new Israeli government. You said something like this – and to the degree that I’m distorting your words or your thoughts, please correct me – “It is somewhat strange that socialism is supposed to find so many friends, and capitalism so many enemies among Jews when perhaps some people might think that the essence of the Jewish tradition is so alien to socialism and so akin to capitalism.” And I wondered, to the extent that you meant much of that, what you meant by it?
FRIEDMAN: Well, I think I mean, I would endorse certainly that statement as you put it, while going onto say it needs some elaboration in some respects. Let me see if I can put it to you in a sort of a different way. My first visit to Israel was made about 15 years ago. I was there for about three months as a visitor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. And after I left Israel, I summarized my impressions by saying that I thought that the best way to understand Israel was to recognize that two Jewish traditions were at war with one another in Israel. One of them was a very recent tradition, a tradition of 100, 150 years old. That’s the tradition of socialism. That’s the tradition you referred to in your initial comments, that it is true that on the whole the Jewish intellectuals have been strongly pro-socialist. And that’s contributed disproportionately to the socialist literature. That was the one tradition. The other tradition, I said, was a tradition that was at least 2,000 years old. It was a tradition that had arisen during the Diaspora and as a result of the Diaspora. It was a tradition of how you get around government regulations, how you find chinks in controls, how you find those areas in which the free market operates and make the most of them. It was that tradition which had enabled the Jews to survive during centuries of persecution by the constituted authorities. Once in a while there would be a monarch who would intervene in favor of the Jews. But almost always that was because there had been a Jew who had accumulated enough money through the free market, through capitalism, to have loaned money to the monarch and have him in his debt. The story in the Bible of Esther is not a very usual story. That isn’t usually the way it occurs. Most of the time the Jews have survived despite the opposition of the powers that be, not because of them. And this ancient tradition of 2,000 years is still very much alive in Israel. And what I said at that time was that fortunately for Israel the ancient tradition is strongly renewable.
Now, let me go back to that in a modern context. I believe that there are few people in the world who have benefitted as much from capitalism and free enterprise as the Jews. Suppose you ask yourself in what countries it is that the Jews have been able to survive and thrive. They’ve been able to survive and thrive primarily in those countries that have had capitalism and free enterprise. They haven’t been able to survive and thrive in the socialist utopias of Russia or of Poland. They haven’t been able to, they weren’t able to survive and thrive in the national socialist state of Nazi Germany. They have been able to survive and thrive in places like Great Britain, in Germany when it was capitalist before Hitler, in France which is largely capitalist, and the United States. And more important, in what parts of those economies have they done best? In those parts where government has had the least role to play. You do not find in the United states that the Jews have done very well in large-scale manufacturing or in commercial banking, because those are areas which are very closely intertwined with government. In banking you need a governmental franchise. And there is probably no industry in the United States in which there are fewer Jews, surprising as it may seem, in major positions of responsibility than in the commercial banking industry. Where have they thrived? In the industries which have been most competitive, where there’s been the least monopoly, private or public: retaining, which was open to all; in new industries, in Hollywood. Why? Because it was a new, brand new industry. There were no settled positions of privilege or of power, no government involvement.
So, Jews have done best – and other minorities. I’m not only speaking of Jews. If you look at the Japanese in the United States, if you look at the blacks in the United States, in every case they have done best in those areas where you have had the greatest degree of competition; and they have done worst in those areas where you have had the most monopoly and the most governmental link to government. So on the one hand, there are no people in the world who have benefitted so much from capitalism as the Jews. Look at Israel. Suppose socialism had triumphed in the world. How would Israel have gotten support? Did Israel get support in its early and difficult days from the governments of the world? Or from people? And from what people? From the Jews who had managed to make a little bit of a competence for themselves and accumulated a little funds in the capitalist bastions of the world.
So, the Jews have benefitted enormously from capitalism. And yet on the other side – and that’s the issue you raise – here you have the paradox that the Jews have been among those who have contributed much to undermine the intellectual foundations of capitalism.
HEFFNER: Is this a dichotomy that exists in contemporary Israel too?
FRIEDMAN: Of course. Of course. It has existed.
HEFFNER: Then how will you make a contribution?
FRIEDMAN: Oh, well, you know how it is. I will make a contribution. I would be delighted to if I could. But you know, people ask for advice from people who they know will give them the advice they want to hear. Well, there’s no shortage of good economists in Israel. They are very good economists. They know what to do. And in fact, the economists in Israel have not been in favor of governmental policies in Israel. It’s like it has been in the United States, where the economists have been opposed uniformly to many governmental policies, such as the price-fixing policies I was talking about, such as rent control. Similarly, the economists in Israel have been almost unanimously opposed to some, many governmental controls and regulations. What’s happened in Israel is that you now have a new party that came into power. … It’s a party that proclaims it’s belief in private enterprise. It proclaims its desire to reduce the size of government and to give greater opportunities to individuals. Their objectives are excellent. I hope they achieve them. I’m not wholly confident that they will, in fact. I have many doubts about whether they will succeed. And a reason why they have asked me if I would advise them is because they know that I believe in a free economy and that their policy is my policy. And insofar as I can give any assistance, I am delighted to, both because of my general desire to see freedom prosper, and also because I have a very strong personal sympathy and interest in Israel. I am Jewish by origin and culture. I share their values and their belief. I share the admiration which many have had for the miracles that have occurred in Israel. So if I can make any contribution to a more effective policy for preserving Israel, Israel’s freedom and strength, I would certainly be delighted to do so.
thedailyhatchorg 
