Open letter to President Obama (Part 115)

https://i0.wp.com/www.freetochoosemedia.org/production/POC/presskit2/milton-president-reagan.jpg

Milton Friedman served as economic advisor for two American Presidents – Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Although Friedman was inevitably drawn into the national political spotlight, he never held public office.

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1

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.

Today you are telling us that we must raise taxes in order for us to prosper and grow our economy. I have heard that before and it has never worked!!!!

Liberals like Ernie Dumas and Max Brantley who write for the Arkansas Times have always bragged on the 7% state income tax that Dale Bumpers raised in 1971 and how Arkansas has grown economically since then. However, the facts are quite different.

Ernie Dumas in his article “Arkansas” A tax myth-maker too,” Arkansas Times, April 13, 2011 asserts:

Until Gov. Dale Bumpers raised income-tax rates and other taxes in 1971, Arkansas had by far the lowest per-capita state and local taxes in the United States. Afterward, we were still 50th but within shouting distance of 49th.

Here are the real facts  according to Greg Kaza of the Arkansas Policy Foundation:

(June 2006) Democratic Gov. Dale Bumpers and the General Assembly raised Arkansas’ top income tax rate to “broaden the tax base” in 1971(1). Yet Arkansas’ per capita income, expressed as a percentage of the U.S. total, has barely improved, moving from 71 (1971) to 77.7 percent (2005) over the 34-year period, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The 1971 income tax increase reversed a decades-long strong growth trend and left Arkansas with the highest income tax rate among bordering states (Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas).

Income Stagnation: The 1930s
One has to turn to the 1930s-the decade of the Great Depression-to find weaker income growth than in recent years.

Arkansas per capita personal income was 44 percent of the U.S. in 1929, the first year data was compiled in the BEA time series. The Great Depression started that year, and by the time it ended in 1933 Arkansas per capita income had fallen to 41 percent of the U.S. By decade’s end (1939) it had returned to 44 percent.

Growth Decades: The 1940s, 1950s & 1960s
Arkansas per capita income increased as a percentage of the U.S. in the next three decades.
In 1941, at the onset of World War II, Arkansas per capita income was 47 percent of the U.S. It was 59 percent at war’s end in 1945 and again in 1949. It was 56 percent in 1950, 62 percent a decade later in 1960, and 68 percent in 1969. If this growth rate had continued Arkansas would have exceeded 100 percent of the U.S. average in the current decade (2000-2009).

To summarize, Arkansas per capita income increased from 44 to 71 percent of the U.S. total between 1939 and 1971.

Anemic Income Growth (1971-2005)
The trend in recent decades is anemic growth in Arkansas per capita personal income. Fiscal policy changes effect economic behavior with a time lag. Arkansas per capita income was 71 percent of the U.S. in 1971 and 76 percent in 1973. Income growth stagnated for the rest of the decade, reaching 77 percent of the U.S. in 1979. It fell to 75 percent in 1989, and was 76 percent in 1999. Today, Arkansas per capita income, at 77.7 percent of the U.S., is barely above its high point of the 1970s.

_____________

We can look at other states and see what their experience is too.

I’ve done a couple of posts comparing Reaganomics and Obamanomics, mostly based on data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve on employment and economic output.

I even did a TV interview on the subject, which generated some comments on my taste in clothing, and also cited a Richard Rahn column that got Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein upset.

Some of the best evidence about high tax rates vs. low tax rates comes from inside America. Art Laffer (yes, that Art Laffer) and Steve Moore have a great column in today’s Wall Street Journal. It’s sort of Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics, looking at evidence from the states.

Barack Obama is asking Americans to gamble that the U.S. economy can be taxed into prosperity. …Mr. Obama needs a refresher course on the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s and even the 1990s, when government spending and taxes fell and employment and incomes grew rapidly. But if the president wants to see fresher evidence of how taxes matter, he can look to what’s happening in the 50 states. In our new report “Rich States, Poor States,” prepared for the American Legislative Exchange Council, we compare the economic performance of states with no income tax to that of states with high rates. It’s like comparing Hong Kong with Greece… Every year for the past 40, the states without income taxes had faster output growth (measured on a decadal basis) than the states with the highest income taxes. In 1980, for example, there were 10 zero-income-tax states. Over the decade leading up to 1980, those states grew 32.3 percentage points faster than the 10 states with the highest tax rates. Job growth was also much higher in the zero-tax states. The states with the nine highest income tax rates had no net job growth at all, and seven of those nine managed to lose jobs.

Tax rates also lead people to “vote with their feet.” Laffer and Moore look at migration patterns.

Over the past decade, states without an income tax have seen 58% higher population growth than the national average, and more than double the growth of states with the highest income tax rates. …Illinois, Oregon and California are state practitioners of Obamanomics. All have passed soak-the-rich laws like the Buffett Rule (plus economically harmful regulations, like California’s cap-and-trade scheme), and all face big deficits because their economies continue to sink. Illinois has lost one resident every 10 minutes since hiking tax rates in January. California has 10.9% unemployment, having lost 4.8% of its jobs over the past decade. …Every time California, Illinois or New York raises taxes on millionaires, Florida, Texas and Tennessee see an influx of rich people who buy homes, start businesses and shop in the local economy.

Competition among the states is leading some states to make further improvements. Some are even trying to get rid of their income taxes.

Republican governors in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, North Dakota, South Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin and even Michigan and New Jersey are cutting taxes to lure new businesses and jobs. Asked why he wants to reduce the cost of doing business in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker replies: “I’ve never seen a store get more customers by raising its prices, but I’ve seen customers knock down the doors when they cut prices.” Georgia, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma are now racing to become America’s 10th state without an income tax.

I like the quote from Governor Walker. He seems to know what he’s talking about, so it will be interesting to see whether he survives the upcoming recall election. I guess it depends whether voters understand that big government and high tax rates is a recipe for continued decline.

Some states, such as Illinois and California, are filled with voters who refuse to recognize reality. Think of them as the Greece and Spain of America, perhaps because the number of tax-consumers is greater than the number of tax-producers.

And even though parasites should understand it doesn’t make sense to kill their host animals, this cartoon illustrates how the welfare states lures a growing number of people to ride in the wagon. And this cartoon shows the consequences of too many moochers and not enough producers.

______________

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

_____________

Take a look at all the Milton Friedman clips that I have posted today. These liberals I mentioned above have truly forgotten how powerful the market is if not interferred with by the government.

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 2

Related posts:

Why do people move to other states to avoid Arkansas’ high state income tax? (If you love Milton Friedman then you will love this post)

Milton Friedman served as economic advisor for two American Presidents – Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Although Friedman was inevitably drawn into the national political spotlight, he never held public office. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1 Mike Huckabee recently moved to Florida? Why? The answer […]

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 3

July 15, 2012 – 9:00 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 156)

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

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Here are a few more I just emailed to Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

  • Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina relief spending to build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of Engineers—the agency partially responsible for the failed levees that flooded New Orleans.
  • Medicare officials recently mailed $50 millionin erroneous refunds to 230,000 Medicare recipients.
  • Audits showed $34 billionworth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.
July 15, 2012 – 7:22 am Categories: Mike Huckabee, spending out of control | Post a comment

Is it class warfare? Brummett says no, I say yes

Take a look above at this clip.

In his article “Class Warfare versus Pay it forward,” Sept 26, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, John Brummett tries to make the case that Obama is not involved in class warefare. He quotes Elizabeth Warren to prove his point.

Unfortunately, logically this argument fails because although we all benefit from roads, police, fire departments and education, it is not clear that the rich benefit from all the social welfare programs that Warren wants to keep running. Also how does the rich benefit from Social Security?

Elizabeth Warren, Fair Play, and Soaking the Rich

Posted by Aaron Ross Powell

Elizabeth Warren’s recent remarks on class warfare, made during a campaign stop in her quest for a Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat, provide a nice microcosm of the broader philosophical views behind much contemporary political debate.

The relevant bit that has her supporters so fired up goes like this:

I hear all this, oh this is class warfare, no! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there–good for you.

But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory.

Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea–God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Fully exploring the thinking behind Warren’s remarks would demand a book at least. We might point out that most of the rich got that way by creating value for others, meaning they gave back in the process of getting rich. Or we might wonder if her thinking implies that, because the state is responsible in part for the environment in which all of us earned what we have, the state is the actual owner of what we have.

To spare you having to read that book, however, I’m going to instead address just two points I find particularly interesting. First, we can tease out the theory of political obligation Warren advances and see if it holds up to scrutiny. Second, we can ask whether her argument, even if we accept it on its own terms, supports a tax increase on high income earners.

In a 1955 essay, H. L. A. Hart articulated what’s come to be known as the “fair play” principle of political obligation.

When a number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to those restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission.

Framed in Warren’s language, “the rest of us” restricted our liberty by paying taxes for the creation of roads, the formation of police forces, the funding of fire departments, and so on. And the rich benefited from our submission to taxes by getting rich (in part) because of the existence of roads, police, and fire departments. Therefore, we have a right to a similar submission from the rich in the form of them paying an increased amount in taxes to fund roads, police, and fire departments, too.

So by her account, this can’t be class warfare because it’s a simple matter of obligation. But is that true? Does the so-called “fair play” account of political obligation work?

Not really. Robert Nozick famously knocked it down in Anarchy, State, and Utopia with a thought experiment about a neighborhood public address system. And A. John Simmons went even further—and did so more persuasively—in his 1979 classic, Moral Principles and Political Obligations.

But the basic response to “fair play” is pretty simple: It seems awfully weird to demand that we repay benefits we never had a choice about accepting in the first place.

Nobody approached the rich before they were rich and said, “Hey, we’re all pitching in to pay for roads and police, which we all think are pretty valuable. If you’d like to benefit from those things like we would, we ask that you pay for them. Are you up for that?” A (pre-)rich person might very well say, “Yes, I’m game.” In that case the principle of fair play would apply. But it would only apply if he had a meaningful choice about the matter. On the other hand, he might say, “Yes, I think we do need roads and police, but I also think they’d be better provided by an alternative cooperative scheme (the market, a different government, a different voluntary group, etc.) to the one you’re offering.”

Simmons calls this the distinction between “receiving” benefits and “accepting” them. The fair play principle creates obligations when benefits are accepted, but not when merely received.

With that in mind, Warren would have a difficult time arguing that any of us genuinely accepted the particular roads and police provided by the particular scheme she supports. We’ve received them, yes, and may rather like what we received—but we were never presented with an actual choice.

There may, of course, be plenty of other good reasons to feel obligated to pay our taxes—or to even pay more taxes than our neighbors—but fair play, at least in the form Warren presents it, doesn’t quite get us there.

Still, let’s set such concerns aside and grant to Warren that, if the rich did benefit from the particular services paid for by the rest of us, they have a duty to pay (more) for them. Would that allow us to justify asking the rich to pay more taxes today?

Again, probably not. Just look at the beneficial services Warren draws our attention to.

  1. Roads
  2. Police
  3. Fire departments
  4. Education

She tacks an “and so on” to the list, but there’s something striking about the concrete examples she does give. Namely, they’re all the kinds of things you’d expect even from a much smaller state than the one we have today.

In other words, the need to raise taxes at the present moment (if such a need exists) is precisely not to pay for roads, police, fire departments, and education. We had those—and they were functioning quite nicely—for a good while before the explosion of federal spending under the last two administrations.

If Warren’s claim is that the rich got rich because of certain benefits they received from government and so should pay more to provide those benefits to others, then the overwhelming bulk of government spending is completely outside the scope of her argument.

It’s not obvious that many rich people got to be rich because of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or military expenses. (Those who got rich because of subsidies are another matter, but she doesn’t draw that distinction, nor is she calling for an end to government handouts to the wealthy and politically connected.) But those are where we’ve seen so much of the spending increases that now demand, according to Warren and her peers, that all of us pony up more cash to the federal government.

This means that an easy response to Warren is to grant her general philosophical point but then add that what it leads to is not increased taxes but cutting government back to those programs that do make people rich and only then worry about how much of what remains the rich should pay for.

Of course we might also point out that, even with the bloated leviathan we have in Washington—one that does far more than provide roads, police, fire departments, and schools (which are, after all, chiefly state and local matters)—the rich still pay for most of it. Certainly more than “the rest of us” pay. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out back in May, “the highest-earning 10% of the U.S. population paid the largest share among 24 countries examined, even after adjusting for their relatively higher incomes.” The top 20% of American income earners pay over half the federal taxes. Which means that “the next kid who comes along” already is getting his federal benefits from the rich. To Warren and her supporters, I ask, “How much is enough?”

If Warren’s moral case for increasing the tax burden of the rich doesn’t hold up, can she still maintain her claim that this isn’t class warfare? Probably not. By her arguments, the rich are not obligated to pay more than they already are. Nor will their paying more do much of anything to ameliorate America’s fiscal woes. That means it’s rather difficult to see her speech as anything but a ploy to fire up her base by attacking a disfavored minority.

If that’s not class warfare, I don’t know what is.

Update: I just finished a podcast on the subject of this post with Caleb Brown.

July 15, 2012 – 12:40 am Categories: Cato Institute, Social Security, spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

“Schaeffer Sunday” Francis Schaeffer noted “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.”

photo

___________________________________________

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 there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), p. 224.

____________________________________

Al Mohler wrote the article ,”FIRST-PERSON: They indeed were prophetic,” Jan 29, 2004, and in this great article he noted:   .

“We stand today on the edge of a great abyss,” they wrote. “At this crucial moment choices are being made and thrust on us that will for many years to come affect the way people are treated. We want to try to help tip the scales on the side of those who believe that individuals are unique and special and have great dignity.”

This year marks the 25th anniversary of “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop. The anniversary serves to remind us just how unaware and unawake most evangelicals really were 25 years ago — and how prophetic the voices of Schaeffer and Koop were.

Whatever Happened to the Human Race? was both a book project and a film series, the fruit of an unusual collaboration between Francis Schaeffer, one of the truly significant figures of 20th-century evangelicalism, and C. Everett Koop, one of the nation’s most illustrious pediatric surgeons. They were an odd couple of sorts, but on the crucial issues of human dignity and the threat of what would later be called the “Culture of Death,” they were absolutely united.

Francis Schaeffer, who died in 1984, was nothing less than a 20th-century prophet. He was a genuine eccentric, given to wearing leather breeches and sporting a goatee — then quite unusual for anyone in the evangelical establishment. Then again, Schaeffer was never really a member of any establishment, and that is partly why a generation of questioning young people made their way to his Swiss study center known as L’Abri.

Big ideas were Schaeffer’s business — and the Christian worldview was his consistent framework. Long before most evangelicals even knew they had a worldview, Schaeffer was taking alternative worldviews apart and inculcating in his students a love for the architecture of Christian truth and the dignity of ideas.

Key figures on the evangelical left wrote Schaeffer off as a crank, and he returned the favor by denying that they were evangelicals at all. They complained that he did not follow their rules for scholarly publication. He pointed out that people actually read his books — and young people frustrated with cultural Christianity read his books by the thousands. They were looking for someone with ideas big enough for the age, relevant for the questions of the times, and based without compromise in Christian truth. Francis Schaeffer — knee pants and all — became a prophet for the age.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, on the other hand, is a paragon of the American establishment — a former surgeon-in-chief at the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and later surgeon general of the United States under President Reagan. In 1974 Koop catapulted to international attention by performing the first successful surgical separation of conjoined twins. A Presbyterian layman, Koop lives in quasi-retirement in Pennsylvania. His surgical procedures remain textbook cases for medical students today.

Whatever Happened to the Human Race? awakened American evangelicals to the anti-human technologies and ideologies that then threatened human dignity. Most urgently, the project put abortion unquestionably on the front burner of evangelical concern. The tenor of the times is seen in the fact that Schaeffer and Koop had to argue to evangelicals in the late 1970s that abortion was not just a “Catholic” issue. They taught many evangelicals a new and urgently needed vocabulary about embryo ethics, euthanasia and infanticide. They knew they were running out of time.

“Each era faces its own unique blend of problems,” they argued. “Our time is no exception. Those who regard individuals as expendable raw material — to be molded, exploited, and then discarded — do battle on many fronts with those who see each person as unique and special, worthwhile, and irreplaceable.”

Every age is marked by both the “thinkable” and the “unthinkable,” they asserted — and the “thinkable” of late-20th-century Western cultures was dangerously anti-human. The lessons of the century — with the Holocaust at its center — should be sufficient to drive the point home. The problem, as illustrated by those who worked in Hitler’s death camps, was the inevitable result of a loss of conscience and moral truth. They were “people just like all of us,” Koop and Schaeffer reminded. “We seem to be in danger of forgetting our seemingly unlimited capacities for evil, once boundaries to certain behavior are removed.”

By the last quarter of the century, life and death were treated as mere matters of choice. “The schizophrenic nature of our society became further evident as it became common practice for pediatricians to provide the maximum of resuscitative and supportive care in newborn intensive-care nurseries where premature infants were under their care — while obstetricians in the same medical centers were routinely destroying enormous numbers of unborn babies who were normal and frequently of larger size. Minors who could not legally purchase liquor and cigarettes could have an abortion-on-demand and without parental consent or knowledge.”

Schaeffer and Koop pointed to other examples of moral schizophrenia. Disabled persons were given new access to facilities and services in the name of human rights, while preborn infants diagnosed with the same disabilities were often aborted — with the advice that it would be “wrong” to bring such a baby into the world.

Long before the discovery of stem cells and calls for the use of human embryos for such experimentation, Schaeffer and Koop warned of attacks upon human life at its earliest stage. “Embryos ‘created’ in the biologist’s laboratory raise special questions because they have the potential for growth and development if planted in the womb. The disposal of these live embryos is a cause for ethical and moral concern.”

They also saw the specter of infanticide and euthanasia. Infanticide, including what is now called “partial-birth abortion,” is murder, they argued. “Infanticide is being practiced right now in this country, and the saddest thing about this is that it is being carried on by the very segment of the medical profession which has always stood in the role of advocate for the lives of children.” Long before the formal acceptance of euthanasia in countries like the Netherlands, Koop and Schaeffer saw the rise of a “duty to die” argument used against the old, the very sick and the unproductive. They rejected euthanasia in the case of a “so-called vegetative existence” and warned all humanity that disaster awaited a society that lusted for a “beautiful death.”

“Abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are not only questions for women and other relatives directly involved — nor are they the prerogatives of a few people who have thought through the wider ramifications,” they declared. “They are life-and-death issues that concern the whole human race equally and should be addressed as such.”

How did this happen? This embrace of an anti-human “humanism” could only be explained by the rejection of the Christian worldview. “Judeo-Christian teaching was never perfectly applied,” they acknowledged, “but it did lay a foundation for a high view of human life in concept and practice.” Through the inculcation of biblical values, “people viewed human life as unique — to be protected and loved — because each individual is made in the image of God.”

Two great enemies of truth were blamed for this loss of biblical truth — modern secularism and theological liberalism. The secularists insist on the imposition of a “humanism” that defines humanity in terms of productivity, arbitrary standards of beauty and health, and an inverted system of value. Theological liberalism, denying the truthfulness of the Bible, robs the church and the society of any solid authority. The biblical concept of humanity made in the image of God is treated as poetry rather than as truth. But, “if people are not made in the image of God, the pessimistic, realistic humanist is right: The human race is indeed an abnormal wart on the smooth face of a silent and meaningless universe.”

Everything else simply follows. “In this setting, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia … are completely logical. Any person can be obliterated for what society at one moment thinks of as its own social or economic good.” Once human life and human dignity are devalued to this degree, recovery is extremely difficult — if not impossible.

The past 25 years has been a period of even more rapid technological and moral change. We now face threats to human dignity unimaginable just a quarter-century ago. We must now deal with the ethical challenges of embryo research, human cloning, the Human Genome Project and the rise of transhuman technologies. Even with many Christians aware and active on these issues, we are losing ground.

Francis Schaeffer and Everett Koop ended their book with a call for action. “If, in this last part of the twentieth century, the Christian community does not take a prolonged and vocal stand for the dignity of the individual and each person’s right to life — for the right of each person to be treated as created in the image of God, rather than as a collection of molecules with no unique value — we feel that as Christians we have failed the greatest moral test to be put before us in this century.”

In this new century, that warning is even more threatening and more urgent. The challenges of the 21st century are even greater than those faced in the century before. This should make us even more thankful for the prophetic witness of Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop — and even more determined to contend for life. Humanity still stands on the brink of that abyss.
–30–
Adapted from the Crosswalk.com weblog of R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

What Ever Happened to the Human Race?

July 14, 2012 – 10:35 pm Categories: Current Events, Francis Schaeffer | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 114)

Sen. Rand Paul Urges Colleagues to Vote for his Budget Resolution – 05/16/12

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.

What are our choices here in the USA with our huge budget deficit? We could head to Greece or cut our budget until we have it balanced. You would never even consider getting close to a balanced budget while Paul would put in the spending cuts that we need to get the job done.

A few months ago, I wrote some very nice things about a budget plan put together by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, noting that:

Senator Paul and his colleagues are highlighting the fact that the plan generates a balanced budget in just five years. That’s a good outcome, but it should be a secondary selling point. All the good results in the plan – including the reduction in red ink and the flat tax – are made possible because the overall burden of federal spending is lowered.

Not surprising, one of the columnists at the Washington Post has a different perspective. In his hyperventilating column today, Dana Milbank says that Senator’s Paul’s proposal is “monstrous” and “nasty” for reining in the federal government.

The tea party darling’s plan would, among other things, cut the average Social Security recipient’s benefits by nearly 40 percent, reduce defense spending by nearly $100 billion below a level the Pentagon calls “devastating,” and end the current Medicare program in two years — even for current recipients, according to the Senate Budget Committee staff. It would eliminate the education, energy, housing and commerce departments, decimate homeland security, eviscerate programs for the poor, and give the wealthy a bonanza by reducing tax rates to 17 percent and eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. It is, all in all, quite a nasty piece of work.

Setting aside some of the inaccuracies (Social Security benefits would rise, for instance, but not as fast as they would under current law), I have two reactions to Milbank’s screed.

1. Milbank seems to think that Rand Paul’s budget is heartless and mean. Does that mean it would be nice and caring to let America descend into Greek-style fiscal chaos and economic decline? Should the United States be more like Europe, even though living standards are about 30 percent lower?

2. More amusingly, what does he think about the fact that the Senate voted against Obama’s tax-and-spend budget by a stunning margin of 99-0? That’s even worse than the 97-0 vote against the budget Obama proposed last year. The 16 votes for Rand Paul’s budget may not sound like much, but 16 is a lot more than zero.

Setting aside the snarky comments, all that Rand Paul is proposing is to limit the growth of government so that the federal budget grows by an average of about 2 percent annually.

Other nations, such as Canada and New Zealand were much more frugal when they solved their fiscal problems. But for leftists such as Milbank, any fiscal restraint apparently is “nasty” and “monsrous.”

____________

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 14, 2012 – 1:55 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Pamplona Running of the Bulls 2012 – San Fermin 2012 – Headcam – 07/07/2012

A relative mine who is living in Germany told me that he was planning on running with the bulls this year. Here is some footage I got off the internet of this years’ run.

Pamplona Running of the Bulls 2012 – San Fermin 2012 – Headcam – 07/07/2012

Published on Jul 9, 2012 by

Headcam footage of running of the Bulls, opening run 2012. this got me a €150 fine (for filming in the run)

_______________

Spain’s Running Of The Bulls Injures Another 6

By DANIEL OCHOA DE OLZA AND DANIEL WOOLLS 07/13/12 04:55 AM ET AP

Spain Running Of The Bulls
Get World Alerts:

PAMPLONA, Spain — Six people were injured Friday but none gored during the second-to-last day of the running of the bulls in Pamplona.

Navarra Hospital said all six were hurt – in the back, arm, face or leg – in falls or when they were stepped on during a very fast run with bulls from a Seville ranch known for particularly swift dashes at Spain’s most popular summer festival.

One light brown bull running at the edge of the pack knocked people down as if they were rag dolls.

Half-way through the run, one man fell to the cobblestone streets of the city’s old quarter and got up to find several hulking bulls, along with the bell-tinkling steers that run with them, right on top of him. He managed to scurry away to safety.

The pack spread out fairly early in the two-and-half minute run, which is not good: bulls running on their own can become disoriented, thus are more likely to charge at people. Still, no one got gored.

The hospital said one injured man’s face had been stood on, but it was not clear if it was a human foot or a bull’s hoof that got him.

Two of the injured were Americans: a 36-year-old with a fractured forearm, and a 28-year-old with a face injury. The other injured were three Spaniards and a Jordanian.

The San Fermin festival, known for its virtually non-stop drinking and revelry, became world famous with Ernest Hemingway’s novel “The Sun Also Rises.”

The last of eight runs is Saturday. Afterward, revelers bemoan the end of the party by singing a song called “Pobre de Mi,” which can be translated as “woe is me.”

July 13, 2012 – 2:52 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 17) (Razorback stadium is #10)

Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country.

Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums  

By Alex Callos

(Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012 

When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big thing in college football, and some teams have it way more than others.

There are 124 FBS college football teams, and when it comes to the stadiums they play in, they are obviously not all created equal.

There is a monumental difference from the top teams on the list to the bottom teams on the list. Either way, here it is: a complete ranking of the college football stadiums 1-124.

_________________

I have had so many memories in Arkansas Razorback stadium. Some of my favorite were when McFadden was there.

12. Jordan-Hare Stadium: Auburn Tigers

Jordan-hare-stadium_display_image

Not many cities love their team and college like those in Auburn, Alabama.

The Tigers also have an excellent stadium for their fans to cheer them on in.

Jordan-Hare Stadium seats 87,451 and was built in 1939. The fans here are known to be some of the nicest in the country, and the atmosphere here is unbelievable.

The passion of the fans gives the Tigers one of the best home-field advantages in the nation.

 

11. Camp Randall Stadium: Wisconsin Badgers

45_2_display_image

Camp Randall Stadium has been around since 1917 and is one of the best venues in the Big Ten.

It seats 80,321 and is always jam-packed. The student sections here are loud, and the band is also outstanding.

There are a lot of traditions at Camp Randall Stadium and so much history that has happened over the past 95 years.

Stay after the game to enjoy the fifth quarter.

 

10. Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium: Arkansas Razorbacks

Rdfddvvecledtfq

This venue is not quite as big as some of the other mammoth SEC stadiums, but has a lot to offer in the 76,000-seat facility.

Built in 1938, Razorback Stadium has been known to get so loud that the place literally shakes on big plays.

It cracks the top 10 on this list. There is so much energy here, and the crowd seemingly never stops to take a breath during the entire game.

For a loud and crazy stadium experience, this is the place to go.

 

9. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum: USC Trojans

275px-11-11-06-la-coliseum-usc-uo_display_image

With a seating capacity of 93,607, the fans in Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum love to support their USC Trojans.

Having originally opened in 1923, the Coliseum is located right near downtown Los Angeles.

It has an atmosphere that is not as good as some of the big-name schools from the Big Ten and SEC, but still is the best place to watch a college football game on the West Coast.

Related posts:

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 10)

Tennessee Football – Johnny Majors – GREAT – Joining the VOLS in 1952 Uploaded by TheMemphisSlim on Sep 3, 2010 Johnny Majors from Huntland, TN tried out for the UT Football team weighing 150 pounds. His Father, Shirley Majors his HS Coach,encourage him and then 4 younger brothers all to be Vols. Johnny Majors was […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 9)

South Carolina D vs Arkansas O 2011 Tennessee ’86 Sugar Bowl Memories by Russ Finley Uploaded by yankeefanintenn on Dec 12, 2009 All video footage is copyright of WATE-TV6 and the University of Tennessee, but legally reproduced here in conjunction with Fair Use laws. Vols feature (1986 win over Miami 35-7 in the USF&G Sugar […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 8)

Vanderbilt Highlights vs. Arkansas – Oct. 29, 2011 Memphis 21 Tennessee 17 excerpt from “1996 Tiger Football Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 7)

Final Moments of Kentucky vs. Tennessee Football Game 2011 Uploaded by videorocker112 on Nov 27, 2011 Kentucky wins 10-7 and ends the 26 year losing streak!! Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 6)

THE FLEA KICKER – Nebraska vs. Missouri 1997 Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 5)

Arkansas vs. Troy (2007 Football) 2010 Music City Bowl North Carolina vs Tennessee Uploaded by piotrkol1 on Jan 1, 2011 Highlights of North Carolina’s win over Tennessee in the 2010 Music City Bowl. Tennessee had the home-field advantage with the game being played at LP Field in Nashville, and the Volunteers thought they had won […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 4)

Rice 27 BYU 14 (1997 2nd half) Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 3)

Kansas Football 2007 Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big thing in college football, […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 2)

2011 Arkansas State Football Highlights Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big thing in […]

Top football stadiums in the country (Part 1)

Arkansas VS Tulsa 2008 Uploaded by jonesark on Nov 2, 2008 Arkansas entering the field to play #19 Tulsa. Here is a list of the top football stadiums in the country. Power Ranking All 124 College Football Stadiums   By Alex Callos (Featured Columnist) on April 19, 2012  When it comes to college football stadiums, for […]

 
July 13, 2012 – 7:22 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response June 22, 2012(part B) on Healthcare (part 11)

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 June 22, 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.  I think it could have been this one 84.4 but maybe not.  Most likely it was this one below:

Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty

Uploaded by 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 the law is repealed in full.

___________________________

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.

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog on 3-6-12 again claimed that the Republicans will lose this debate with you on Obamacare and conscience. However, I don’t see how that is true and it clearly interferes unconstitutionally with the liberty of Americans.

David S. Addington

February 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm

Congress recognizes more each day that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known widely as the Obamacare statute, interferes unconstitutionally with the liberty of Americans.  From the Obamacare individual mandate to buy health insurance that awaits the action of the Supreme Court, to the Obamacare mandate that many religious hospitals, charities, and schools abandon the tenets of their faiths and include in their group health insurance for employees coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization, Obamacare assaults the Constitution and American freedom.

Fortunately, Members of Congress and the American people are waking up to the need to repeal the Obamacare statute and move instead to market-based, patient-centered health care.  Action in Congress this week to defend religious liberty continues to highlight the need to repeal the Obamacare statute.

The Obama Administration continues to trample on religious liberty by applying the Obamacare statute to mandate that many religious institutions’ group health insurance for employees cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization.  The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Treasury, and Labor published on February 15, 2012 final regulations that compel many religious hospitals, charities, and schools to abandon the tenets of their faiths and comply with that mandate beginning April 16, 2012, or pay fines for maintaining their religious faiths.  The final regulations did not include any changes to respect religious liberty that President Obama had led people to expect.

Although Secretary of HHS Sebelius has said that, for one year, she will simply not perform her duty to enforce the final regulations, her decision not to enforce the regulations temporarily as a matter of grace does not eliminate the mandate’s interference with religious liberty.  Indeed, her pronouncements reflect a failure to understand that religious liberty in America is an unalienable right with which our Creator has endowed us and a right that our Constitution’s First Amendment protects.  Our religious liberty does not arise from the discretion of the Federal Government to do Americans a “favor” and tolerate their religions.  Because President Obama and his agents continue to attack the constitutionally-guaranteed right of these religious institutions to free exercise of religion, Members of Congress are stepping forward to protect the Constitution.

Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) has fought for religious liberty against the Obamacare assault.  He plans to offer this week Senate Amendment No. 1520 to S. 1813, the highway authorization bill, to protect the right to religious liberty against the Obamacare mandate.  The Blunt Amendment notes that, until the enactment of the Obamacare statute in 2010, “the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience . . . .”  The Blunt Amendment would override the Obamacare mandate that religious institutions provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization when it is contrary to their faiths, allowing them to keep their faiths and provide health care coverage for their employees.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has announced his intention to keep the Senate from voting on the Blunt Amendment by making a motion to “table” — that is, to refuse to consider — the Blunt Amendment.  Senator Reid said he considered the Blunt Amendment that  protects religious liberty to be a “distracting proposal.”  Senator Reid may treat legislation to protect religious liberty as a “distraction,” but hundreds of millions of Americans hold their right to free exercise of religion to be a precious freedom.

President Obama and Senator Reid can man the ramparts of Castle Obamacare against the people for only so long.  The American people want their liberty and they shall have it.  The Obamacare statute must go.

__________-

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

___________

Here is the response I got from the White House on June 22, 2012:

The White House, Washington June 22, 2012
 

Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing.  President Obama has heard from many Americans about the Administration’s decision to ensure women have access to preventive care with no co-pays or deductibles, including contraceptive services.  The President is committed to both preserving religious liberty and protecting women’s health.  He appreciates your perspective.

 

The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to cover additional preventive services for women without charging a co-pay or deductible beginning August 1, 2012.  These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception.  The independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science recommended coverage of these procedures to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  The vast majority of women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives, but too many have struggled to afford it.  The scientists and experts at the Institute of Medicine have documented significant health benefits for women that come from using contraception.

  • Get the facts about the Obama Administration’s plans to implement this policy.

The President understands the importance of the work faith-based organizations do and continues to take the ideas and concerns of religious groups seriously.  On February 10, 2012, President Obama announced his Administration will implement this policy in a manner that fully accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women.  After a transition, if a woman’s employer is a religious non-profit organization, such as a charity or hospital, and has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, her insurance company—not the employer—will be required to reach out and provide contraceptive care free of charge.  And, consistent with previously existing conscience clauses, no religious doctor will have to prescribe these services.  We will ensure religious liberty remains protected, and that women will receive the critical preventive services guaranteed by the law.

Thank you, again, for writing.

 

Sincerely,

 

The White House

You are receiving this one-time email because you contacted the White House about a particular issue.

 

If you are interested in receiving regular updates from President Obama and senior White House officials, please visit our subscription page to sign up www.WhiteHouse.gov/get-email-updates.

 

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. • Washington, D.C.  20500 • 202-456-1111

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 95)

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 […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response June 15, 2012 on Healthcare (part 8)

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 June 15, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 94)

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. In your […]

 

July 13, 2012 – 7:21 am Categories: Healthcare, President Obama | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 113)

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.

I really don’t think that socialism works in the real world because it destroys the motivation to work hard. How you respond to these facts below?

Another great article from Dan Mitchell (an updated version is also posted).

I posted a video making this point earlier in the year, and I also posted a version of this joke back in 2010, but here’s another version that’s worth sharing because of the five lessons to be learned at the conclusion.

=================================

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.

There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

=================================

I’ll make one final point. There are five morals to the story, but there are dozens of nations giving us real-world examples every day.

Sort of makes you wonder why some people still believe this nonsense?

__________________

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 13, 2012 – 7:20 am Categories: Cato Institute, President Obama, Taxes | Post a comment

Switchfoot coming to Hot Springs, Arkansas on July 14th!!!!

Saturday 14 July 2012

Switchfoot

Venue

Magic Springs Theme Park 1701 E. Grand Ave. 71901 Hot Springs, AR, US

Venue info and map

Uploaded by  on Aug 20, 2007

Interview with Tim Foreman and Chad Butler airing February 26th, 2007.
Discuss: cowbell, Christianity, fan connection

_______________________________________

SwitchfootSwitchfootCourtesy of: EMI

 

Making of Stars-Switchfoot

 

Switchfoot The Documentary

 

July 13, 2012 – 7:19 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment