Terry Rice of Waldron: Small town honesty and hard work

When I think of the attributes that matter the most to Arkansans, it is probably honesty and hard work. I am hoping that Terry Rice of Waldron will be the next speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives. We will find out on Friday if he is elected in the first vote. However, the real vote will come in January of 2013. 

First here is something that Jason Tolbert wrote the other day followed by a flyer about Terry from 3 years ago and then followed with an article about a mentor of Terry’s from Waldron.

From Tolbert Report:

If you walk into a meeting at the Arkansas House of Representative, Rep. Terry Rice (R-Waldron) would not be the first member to grab your attention.

Observers could see him quietly taking in the happenings of committee meetings and talking to colleagues in the back of the room.  But this soft-spoken servant leadership style might be the key to his becoming the first Republican Speaker of the House.

Rice currently represents rural House District 62, just southeast of the Fort Smith area. He will return next year for his third and final term –  before term limits apply — representing the newly drawn House District 21, which makes up roughly the same area. Rice is unopposed in both his primary and general election.

Rice has lived the Waldron his whole life raising two kids with his wife of almost 40 years.  He tells me that now has four grandkids.  He is the owner of Rice Furniture and Appliance stores and is past president of the Arkansas Home Furnishing Association.

But politics is in Rice’s blood with both his father, W.R. (Bud) Rice, and grandfather, W.S. Rice serving in the state legislature. Terry Rice is a Republican, but his father and grandfather served as Democrats.

Perhaps this heritage may help Rice in his next challenge of being elected Speaker. The election takes place next Friday (March 9) as the House meets to caucus after concluding its work for the fiscal session. Outgoing House members elect a Speaker-designate for the next year.

___________

Today I am profiling St lawmaker Terry Rice of Waldron who I deeply respect.

Terry has known the Sawyer family since his youth and grew up in the

First Baptist Church were the Sawyers got to know him.

Meet Terry Rice

I am passionate in my belief that we cannot continue the status quo.  We cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity.  Government must become more efficient just as successful businesses have.  With over 35 years business experience I am president and co-owner of three Rice Furniture & Appliance stores.  I believe our state needs to foster the right environment to attract business while at the same time practicing tax conservation for the future.  I currently serve on the southeast region board of Associated Volume Buyers/ Brand Source national dealer group and am past president of the Arkansas Home Furnishings Association, serving on the board for over ten years.  Serving people’s needs and solving problems are everyday goals for me in our family’s 58 year third generation business.  I have been recognized as state and region “Dealer of the Year” from our various industry associates.

I believe our faith, life and family values are the foundation of this great country and must stand before political correctness.  Lifelong residents of Scott County, my wife, JoAnn, and I have been married 35 years, have 2 sons, Jeremy and wife, Kim, and Paul and wife, Sarah, who have blessed us with four grandchildren. We are active members of the Bates Baptist Church. I have raised cattle and have been a long time supporter of FFA and 4-H Youth livestock programs.  I understand the importance agriculture plays in District 62 and the state.  I helped establish and served as past president of the State Line Volunteer Fire Department and will support our community fire departments.

I have long been interested in our legislative process and feel now is the time to make a difference by voicing my conservative values for our future.  Hard work and a common sense approach are needed to serve District 62.  I do not seek personal gain or recognition from the office and only seek to work for the good of all people.  I stand for principles and integrity.  I follow the tradition of proven leaders.  My dad, W.R. Bud Rice, served South Sebastian and Scott counties as state representative for 18 years from 1977-1995.  My granddad, Worth Rice, served in the House from 1935-1939.

I know the education and training of Arkansans is vital for our state to compete and I will work to further improve those goals.  I look forward to meeting and listening to your concerns during this campaign.  I believe when Arkansans passed term limits for serving in political office their intent was to be represented by ideas and fresh view points that come from the people and not a single view point passed back and forth from spouses swapping political offices.  This is about the people having a choice to have their voices heard.

I am dedicated to spending the time and resources needed to serve District 62 in the Arkansas House of Representatives, and I will be the one who handles constituent concerns myself as your elected official.  Please feel free to contact me about the issues that are important to you.  I humbly ask for your vote and support in the November 4th General Election

Originally published in Saline Courier on January 8, 2011

     E-mail
 
 

My wife’s grandfather was Lecil Richard “Tom” Sawyer and he lived from September 30, 1906 to September 5, 2004. He was one of the most outstanding men I have ever known. In Waldron, he was a legendary football coach that won 87% of games during the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, and they would later name the football field after him.
Coach Sawyer was married for over 60 years to Vera Mae Martin Sawyer, and their children are Tom Franklin Sawyer of Houston, Texas (who is my father-in-law) and State Senator Mary Anne Salmon of North Little Rock (who is my wife’s aunt).
Most of the details for this article come from an interview I had on Dec. 22nd with Edward “Odell” Fryar who was a running back on the Waldron Bulldog team. Odell and his wife Peggy live in Little Rock, and I got to know them in 1983 when I was a member of Little Rock’s First Baptist Church.
“Coach Sawyer was probably the best high school football coach in Arkansas,” Fryar said. “He was a task master on the practice field and made sure every player played hard every play. Moreover, he was an even better person off the field.”
Tom Franklin Sawyer noted, “My father cared about his players, but he got the most out of them. I remember that if a running back fumbled the ball in a game, then that player would carry a football with him to all his school classes the next week.”
“My father was a great motivator and encourager and those two qualities brought out the best in his players,” daughter Mary Anne Salmon said.
Fryar was a junior on the  district winning 1948 team, and actually Waldron won the district all three years that Fryar was on the team (1947-49). Waldron was a small town of only 1,292 people in 1948 and Benton had over 6,000 people. Fryar said it was not unusual for Waldron to have 30 players dressed out and to be facing teams that had many more players and also the opposing players would be much larger than they were.
The day after Thanksgiving in 1948, Waldron had traveled to Bentonville and beat the undefeated Tigers. Fryar said that the Tigers should have won the game, but  two trick plays resulted in big plays for Waldron.
The first was on a kick off when Herman Jones faked a hand off to Buddy Rogers while returning a kickoff, and all the team blocked for Rogers. The result was that the whole Bentonville team tried to pursue Rogers while Jones hid the ball on his hip and ran slowly all the way to the 10 -yard line.
The second trick play involved Fryar getting a pitch from the quarterback, Leon Bobbitt, and running hard to the left. When the defense  rushed him,  he threw a long 45 -yard lofty pass to Bush McGaugh who was wide open, and McGaugh ran under it and took it for a long touchdown play. That resulted in a  20-19 victory over a very good Bentonville team. Now, Waldron would advance to play the Benton Panthers in the state playoffs.
The victory over Bentonville was a costly one for the Waldron Bulldogs. Johnny Evans, the star running back,was banged up and Fryar had to replace him most of the time for the Benton game.
Fryar said there was  a big crowd on hand and a thick fog settling over the field. The Panthers had more players suited out than Waldron, and they looked much bigger than the Bulldogs did too. However, Waldron had the tallest player on the field with tight end Don Sevier who was 6-8, and later Sevier earned All Conference honors for Arkansas Tech in basketball as their center, and eventually served as the Athletic Director for Arkansas Tech.
Benton Panther standout players included Bill Level, a 225 lb tackle, who was a four year letterman, and “Shoat” Shoppach, 165 lb left halfback.
According to the December 9, 1948 issue of The Benton Courier, the Benton Panthers defeated Waldron 13-6 at C.W. Lewis Stadium. Here is what the article reported:
The Benton Panthers were pushed to defeat the unbeaten and untied Waldron Bulldogs 13-6 at Lewis Stadium Friday night.
The Panthers scored late in the second quarter on a pass from Erwin to Jennings, who was standing in the end zone. Lovell’s try for the extra point was good. The Panthers led 7-0 at the half.
Benton kicked off to start the last half. One play after the kick off Buddy Rogers got on a 75 yard run, and was brought down on the 5 yard line. Two plays later Herman Jones try for the extra point was blocked. Benton led 7-6.
Benton scored in the last quarter on a pass from Erwin to Smith that was good for 35 yards and Smith ran 20 more to score. Lovell’s kick for the extra point was blocked.
Waldron was hampered by injuries, and many of the players had to be taken from the field. There was a fog all the last half which made seeing the ball difficult for the players, as well as the fans.
The final score was Benton 13, Waldron 6.
Probably the greatest legacy that Sawyer had was the family and friends that he influenced. Not only did Sawyer serve as football coach but he was the Waldron School Superintendent from 1934 to 1975 and Mayor of Waldron from 1975 to 1983. He also taught a men’s Sunday School Class at the Waldron First Baptist Church for many years.
“There are few people in my life that have received the level of respect I hold for L.R. “Tom” Sawyer,” state representative Terry Rice of Waldron said. “I guess the saying, ‘You give respect, you get respect’ fits well here. Whether it was a small child who needed reassuring, a student who had acted up, or an adult from any walk of life, I witnessed someone who could be as kind, as tough, or as knowledgeable as possible while always listening”
Rice said that even though Sawyer could have moved on to have “achieve lofty heights and big pay,” he chose to stay and touch the lives of thousands of people in Scott County.
William Roy Wilson, Jr., an United States Senior District Judge, recalls a story from his senior year at Waldron High School involving Sawyer and some chewing gum.
“I was in the library chewing gum, and Mr. Sawyer called me outside and told me, ‘Billy Roy, you are kind of a leader and I need for you do me a favor,” Wilson recalls. “’If you see anyone chewing gum, tell them it is against the rules and I am sure they will listen to you.’ I swallowed that gum on the spot.”
About a year ago, my wife Jill and I talked about the legacy of her grandfather  who we called, “PapPaw.” I told her that I decided to have my grandkids call me PapPaw out of honor of the memory of her grandfather. The complicating factor was that my 3 yr old grandson, Luke Hatcher, had already been calling me “Granddaddy.” However, he did well in the transition, and he told my son , “Granddaddy wants me to call him PapPaw!!!”
I hope that one day Luke will ask me why I chose the name “PapPaw, and I will be glad to tell him.
• • •
Everette Hatcher is a regular contributor to The Saline Courier. He is the fourth generation in his family to work in the broom manufacturing business. Everette and his wife Jill have four children and live in Alexander.

LR “Tom” Sawyer shown at his desk at Waldron School District around 1940.

 
 
 
    
 
 
.
March 8, 2012 – 7:10 am Categories: Current Events, Jason Tolbert | Post a comment

Obama’s March 16, 2006 speech against raising debt ceiling

Obama’s March 16, 2006 speech against raising the debt ceiling is here:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., (Senate – March 16, 2006)

_______________

3 Reasons Why The Debt-Ceiling Debate is Full of Malarkey

Uploaded by on Jul 15, 2011

All anybody in Washington can talk about these days is the debt limit or debt ceiling — the total amount of money the federal government is authorized to borrow at any given time. After a decade in which spending increased by more than 60 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars and the debt limit was raised no fewer than 10 times, the government is about to max out its $14.3 trillion credit line, leading to fears that Washington is going to default on its bonds, stop cutting Social Security checks, and destroy the economy more than it already has.

But the current debate over the debt ceiling is full of malarkey for at least three reasons.

1. August 2 is a phony deadline. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has pushed back the drop-dead date when the U.S. finally reaches its limit a bunch of times already: March 31, April 15, May 31 were all cited as deadlines before August 2 was inked in as Armageddon. But this time, he means it, man, really.

2. Reaching the debt limit is not the same as defaulting on our debt — which would indeed be catastrophic.

Think about it: You can max out your credit cards but as long as you keep paying the minimum amount due each month, your creditors don’t go crazy. Interest on the debt is a small fraction of total outlays and the government has a series of tools — from using cash on hand to selling assets to scrimping on nonessential payments — to make sure interest payments are made and seniors aren’t put on an all cat-food diet.

3. Legislating-by-Panic is no way to run a country. The reason we’re in this mess is because government can’t stop spending. And the government can’t even pass a budget on a year’s notice. But we’re expecting them to come up with a good plan for the country’s borrowing in a couple of weeks? Trying to force through an expansion of the country’s credit line by promising cuts in spending down the road is exactly why we’re in this situation to begin with.

It makes far more sense to do something like sell some TARP assets — the government is sitting on $320 billion in outstanding direct loans and equities investments — to cover interest payments through the end of the fiscal year then force Congress and the president to come up with a budget that cuts spending — and borrowing — for real, next year, not is some distant future.

For more information, check out Nick Gillespie’s 5 Uncomfortable Facts About the Wonderful, Horrible Debt-Limit Debate: http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/08/five-uncomfortable-facts-about

And Mercatus Center’s Jason J. Fichtner & Veronique de Rugy’s The Debt Ceiling: What is at Stake: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Debt%20Ceilling.deRugy.Fi…

About 2.35 minutes.

Produced by Nick Gillespie and Meredith Bragg, edited by Joshua Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Related posts (these posts show how much study I have down on this issue before, frankly all 66 of these representatives are my heroes!!):

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 31)

Congressmen Tim Huelskamp on the debt ceiling Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 31) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25)

Uploaded by RepJoeWalsh on Jun 14, 2011 Our country’s debt continues to grow — it’s eating away at the American Dream. We need to make real cuts now. We need Cut, Cap, and Balance. The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25) This post today is a part of a series […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15)

Sen Obama in 2006 Against Raising Debt Ceiling The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 14)

Today I read a post by Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog concerning the falling poll numbers for the Tea Party.   Wednesday, August 17, 2011 – 06:54:18 The Tea Party: is the fun over An interesting New York Times op-ed reviews the plunging poll approval numbers for the Tea Party and delves into the […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 7)

Duncan Hunter at San Diego Eagle Forum.MP4 The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 7) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 6)

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 6) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 5)

Rep. Quayle on Fox News with Neil Cavuto   The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 5) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 2)

“What good is a debt limit that is always increased?” The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 2) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 1)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal. Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon […]

Michele Bachmann voted against Debt Deal (House Roll Call)

Bachmann Explains “No” Vote on Raising the Debt Ceiling Uploaded by RepMicheleBachmann on Aug 2, 2011 On Monday, August 1, 2011, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann appeared on “Hannity” to explain why she voted “no” on the plan to raise the debt ceiling. _______________________________________ Full House roll call By: Associated Press August 1, 2011 08:46 PM EDT […]

March 8, 2012 – 6:39 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (2)

Milton Friedman:“A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” VTR: 5/31/77 Transcript and video clip (Part 4)

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (4 of 6)

 

Uploaded by on Aug 9, 2009

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________

Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77:

Friedman: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the United Sates and vice versa,” in that famous phrase of Mr. Wilson’s. So I don’t think you can distinguish between these two. I think that politicians and people, everybody, businessmen, politicians, scholars, we’re all seeking to pursue our own interests. We don’t have to interpret it as narrowly. My interests are in ideas as much as they are in dollars and cents or something else. But we’re all seeking to pursue our own interests. Politicians, their interests are closely connected with getting reelected. And therefore they will put primary emphasis on what will get me votes next time.

HEFFNER: Well, I was thinking of an analogy. I was thinking of drawing this comparison with the medical scientists; economic scientist and medical scientists. Medical scientists presumably will disagree minimally about what all other factors…

FRIEDMAN: Not at all. Not at all.

HEFFNER: On certain things they may disagree minimally in terms of the technical means that they should employ to deal with, to treat a patient. But in terms of considering the patients, in terms of considering their needs that are more than technical, they may disagree. And quite honestly, as to the approach to take, wouldn’t it be fair to say that this is as much a consideration as what you consider political, a political consideration among economists, which I would relate to how is my party going to be elected more readily the next time around?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I don’t either want to rule out completely that narrow interpretation, nor rule it in completely. I think economists are human beings like everybody else. Many of them do establish party loyalties. What’s more important, many have very strong private interests that are associated with which party is in power.

HEFFNER: Like what?

FRIEDMAN: Like what jogs they have. Like what prestige they have. Like what outside income they will be able to earn. You know, it was not a joke only, for years that the Brookings Institution in Washington was a home away from home for out-of-power Democratic economists. It’s not a joke now that the American Enterprise Institute is serving a similar function for out-of-power Republican economists. Surely these are not trivial and negligible. But they are not the only thing, I agree with you.

HEFFNER: You don’t really think that determinations of public policy or contributions by major economists in terms of the determination of public policy, that in those determinations one’s job in the next administration has played a major role; or do you?

FRIEDMAN: You know, you want to make it black and white. Human beings are distinguished from animals much more by the ability to rationalize than by the ability to reason. Sincerity is a much overrated virtue. It’s possible for anybody to be sincere about anything. I’m not questioning the sincerity or the motives of anybody. I’m only saying a human being is affected by those things that affect his image.

HEFFNER: Are your economic policies affected in that way?

FRIEDMAN: Of course they must have been. I can’t deny that they could have been.

HEFFNER: No, no, I’m not talking about could have been.

FRIEDMAN: Or that they have been. Or that they have been. I mean, we never know ourselves. And the man who says, “I am objective,” you k now that can’t be the case. We’re all of us imperfect human beings. We’re all of us going to be affected by these things. I’m not saying anybody else is any more or less affected than I am. Some people are less affected; some people are more. I would say on the whole you’ve got to look at it in a more complex and sophisticated way. Most people develop beliefs and ideas. Those beliefs and ideas in turn determine what policies they approve, what directions they move. That in turn reacts on them and affects their beliefs and ideas. And the whole thing is a kind of biological process of creating a complex structure that can/t be dissected into the simple black-and-white category. He is in favor of this policy because if he is in favor of that policy he will get this and this job. You can’t say that. That’s not true. I’m not saying that of anybody.

HEFFNER: Okay. I wondered about that because the question of self-interest did come up, and I was shocked by it.

FRIEDMAN: Well, you see, the economists… Take the economics profession as a whole. Because I think it’s very interesting from this point of view. The economists have a very schizophrenic situation. Our discipline of economics, as a science, predisposes all economists to be in favor of a market system, of a free market. Because that’s our business. We come to understand how a market operates. It’s a much more sensitive and sophisticated instrument than may appear on the surface or that the ordinary man in the street believes it. So every economist has a predisposition to be in favor of a market system. On the other hand, the major growth area for jobs for economists has arisen out of government regulation. So the special interests of economists is to be in favor of government regulation. How do you reconcile this? Again, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying anyone is doing this in a Machiavellian way. I’m just describing the unobserved forces that are at work on it. Well, the way in which many economists have implicitly reconciled it is by being in favor of the free market in general, and opposed to the free market in particular. “And this area is a special case that needs regulation, this area is a special case.” You know, the same thing happens to businessmen. Every businessman is in favor of private enterprise.

HEFFNER: Except in his…

FRIEDMAN: Except for himself. And he isn’t – let me emphasize – in both cases, he isn’t being Machiavellian. He isn’t being insincere. He isn’t being devious. He sincerely believes. He knows his own case. And he sincerely is persuaded that his own case is special and that it’s in the national interest to treat it differently than other cases.

HEFFNER: But this concept of the marketplace, has it always been with us?

FRIEDMAN: Yes. Oh, every society is primarily run by the marketplace. But there are many kinds of marketplaces. The political marketplace…

HEFFNER: And aren’t you talking about a particular kind?

FRIEDMAN: I’m talking… But even the particular kind, yes, there are two main kinds of marketplaces. The economic marketplace in which you buy and sell, which has much broader relevance than you might a first suppose. And the political marketplace in which decisions are made by votes or by authority through political position by command.

HEFFNER: I understand. But I just wondered whether this basic agreement that you referred to among economists, all of whom relate to the economic marketplace, I was about to ask where is it written…

FRIEDMAN: (Laughter)

HEFFNER: …where is it written that the concept of the marketplace shall prevail? Isn’t this a rather modern concept? And if it is, why must we tie ourselves to it as tightly as you would have us do, as tightly as you suggest all economists would have us?

FRIEDMAN: Well, let’s answer that in two different ways. You say, “Why must we tie to it?” Because the fact of the matter is that there is no alternative mechanism that has so far been devised which will enable large and complex societies to exist. Consider what seems like the most extreme exception: the Soviet Union. It’s not, in the first instance you would say that’s not a market economy. And yet, the main organization of resources in the Soviet Union is through the marketplace and not through government command. And this is true in all sorts of ways. Anybody who read Hedric Smith’s fascinating book on the Russians will discover that if something goes wrong with you electricity in your house, you don’t call a state office and have them send somebody. You get a government employee on his spare time to come in and fix it for you.

HEFFNER: The same thing is true here, if you can.

FRIEDMAN: Of course, of course. Well, no, if you can here, you hire somebody. But in Russia supposedly you ought to get a state official, governmental official. It’s all done by government agencies. It’s not here, yet.

Go on. Take food. Something like 25, 30, 35 percent of the people in the Soviet Union are required to produce a food. They permit small private plots. Those plots account for two to three percent of the arable land of the Soviet Union. They produce a third of the food in private markets and distributed through markets. If you have, if you look at the way in which labor is organized, the buyers are governmental agencies. But people are attracted to one job or another by the job or by the pay that is offered to them. Fundamentally, the Soviet Union is a market economy, but it’s distorted market economy because the extraordinarily great role of government forces the market into channels which are not efficient and not effective. And so much of its power is wasted in simply overcoming the bureaucratic mess of the government. That’s why the Soviet Union has such a low standard of life. So it’s interesting, on a matter of theory. Well, I don’t like that word. ON a matter of sort of abstract ideal, you can conceptualize a command economy in which the market plays no role. It’s an army. A general gives an order to a colonel, a colonel to a major, a major to a captain, and so on down the line. Or you can visualize a voluntary exchange economy, a pure market economy in which everything is conducted by voluntary agreement among individuals’ purchase and sale.

March 8, 2012 – 6:16 am Categories: Milton Friedman | Post a comment

Raising the debt ceiling again so fast?

It seems to me that we should stop raising the debt ceiling so much or we will end up like Greece. Below is some great information from Reason Magazine:

Uploaded by on Mar 1, 2011

[Editor’s Note: Go to http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/01/raising-the-debt-limit-it-just for details, charts, and links]

Some say the world will end in fire and some say in ice.

But in Washington, a lot of people say it will end if we don’t continually raise the debt ceiling.

The statutory debt limit, or debt ceiling, represents the maximum amount of debt the federal government can carry at any given time. The limit was created in 1917 so that Congress wouldn’t have to vote every time the government wanted to increase the amount of debt (which was becoming a more and more frequent occasion). Since then, the Treasury Department has had the authority to issue new debt up to whatever the limit is to fund government needs. Last year, the limit was raised to $14.3 trillion, an amount that is about to reached.

As it approaches, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said failing to raise the limit would likely mean the U.S. would default on its debt, creating “real chaos” in place of the fake chaos that’s out there now. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said that failing to raise the limit would be “deeply irresponsible” and and Austan Goolsbee, President Obama’s chief economic adviser, has said that not raising the limit would create “the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”

Eh, maybe.

As Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy, has pointed out, we’ve maxed out the nation’s credit card in the past without such dire results. In the mid-1980s, the mid-1990s, and in 2002, for instance, the debt limit wasn’t raised for months at a time and the government got along just swell. The government has a big bag of tools it can use, ranging from playing around with the amount of spending that is liable to the limit to prioritizing interest and debt payments over other outlays. Interest on the debt for this year is projected to be about $225 billion and government revenue is expected to be around $2.2 trillion, so the government can easily pay the vig and avoid defaulting.

What it shouldn’t do is simply keep piling on the debt. The limit has been raised no fewer than 10 times in the past decade. When Republicans ran the White House and the Congress, they voted overwhelmingly to charge it and Democrats, including Sen. Obama, hollered bloody murder. In 2006, he called the need to yet again increase the debt limit “a sign of leadership failure.” Now that Dems run the show, the GOP has suddenly rediscovered its inner cheapskate.

So it goes.

The boldest plan to rein in spending and debt comes from newcomer Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a Tea Party favorite who dispatched Republican incumbent Bob Bennett in the primaries before coasting to victory in the general election last fall. Lee has vowed to block passage of a debt-limit increase unless Congress signs on to his balanced-budget amendment which would cap annual federal spending at 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The amendment would require a super-majority of two-thirds in the Senate and House of Representatives. Lee’s bill is competing with another Republican proposal from Sens. Hatch (Utah) and Cornyn (Texas) to cap spending at 20 percent of GDP. The Hatch-Cornyn bill has weaker rules on its higher cap as well.

In 2010, spending came to about 24 percent of GDP and it’s expected to come in around 25 percent of GDP in 2011. Since 1950, total federal revenues have averaged 17.8 percent and have reached higher than 20 percent exactly once. Spending over the same time has averaged just under 20 percent.

Whether Lee’s proposal carries the day — and there’s a strong case that its passage would do more to calm financial markets than simply bumping up the federal credit line — neither the Democratic nor the Republican leadership has yet to advance a serious proposal to cut spending and reduce outstanding debt. Indeed, both the president’s budget proposal for 2012 and the generally non-existent Republican response are not only deeply irresponsible but clear signs of insanity.

That ain’t right. But it does help explain why a government that has increased spending over 62 percent in real dollars can no longer get by on a $14 trillion debt ceiling.

For more info, go to http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/01/raising-the-debt-limit-it-just

March 8, 2012 – 6:15 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

You asked for ideas to cut spending, but you voted for the 800 billion dollar stimulus that did not help the economy at all. I have included an article below that makes a very good point about the Balanced Budget Amendment and the stimulus:

Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.

And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.

“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.

That is a very good point in favor of having a balanced budget amendment in my view. I have been critical of you for supporting the stimulus in the past.

Thank you again for your time and for this opportunity to share my ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher

Lee Makes His Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment

By Elisabeth Meinecke

7/18/2011

As Washington spends the summer arguing over its spending addiction, GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has a solution to help prevent the same crisis for future generations: a balanced budget amendment.

The House made news last week when, in the heat of negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, they announced a vote on a balanced budget amendment this Wednesday. Though the Senate GOP introduced a one earlier this year, President Obama has stated emphatically otherwise, telling Americans last week during a press conference that the country does not need a balanced budget amendment.

“Yes, we do,” Lee told Townhall when asked to respond to the president, adding later when talking about simultaneously raising the debt ceiling and cutting spending, “We can’t bind what a future Congress will do. We can pass laws that will affect this year, but there will be a new Congress that takes power in January of 2013, and then another new one that will take power in January 2015. And they will make their own spending decisions then — we can’t bind them unless we amend the Constitution to do so.”

Lee points out that the American people support the idea of a balanced budget – 65 percent, according to a Sachs/Mason Dixon poll from this year – but politicians have been reluctant to wade into the debate.

“The fact that we’re in this debate, the fact that we’re sort of deadlocked, or we’ve reached a point of gridlock in the discussions, is indicative of the problem that we have,” Lee said.

In fact, Lee thinks a balanced budget amendment is so important to the future of the country that he’s written a book on it: The Freedom Agenda: Why a Balanced Budget Amendment Is Necessary to Restore Constitutional Government.

Lee even takes the argument a step beyond fiscal issues, saying a balanced budget amendment safeguards individual liberties.

““The more money it [Congress] has access to, whether it’s through borrowing or through taxation, either way, that’s going to fuel Congress’ expansion, and whenever government acts, it does so at the expanse of individual liberty,” Lee said. “We become less free every time government expands.”

Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.

And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.

“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.

Lee also pointed out that his balanced budget amendment includes an exception to the spending restriction in time of war – “not a blank check, but to the extent necessary.” Congress would also be able to supersede the amendment with a two-thirds vote.

“We wanted to make it difficult, but not impossible, for Congress to spend more than it had access to,” Lee said, citing as an example a massive or immediate crisis created by a national emergency or natural disaster. “What this is designed to do is to make it more difficult – to make it impossible – for Congress to just do this as a matter of course.”

Elisabeth Meinecke

Elisabeth Meinecke is Associate Editor with Townhall.com

March 8, 2012 – 6:11 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Federal government spending money so fast they will pass debt ceiling before election

Sen Obama in 2006 Against Raising Debt Ceiling

Uploaded by on Jun 20, 2011

Rep. Stearns on the House Floor cites Sen. Obama’s opposition in 2006 to increasing the debt ceiling, 6-14-11

________________________

It has greatly troubled me for sometime that the federal government spends so much over their budget every year. That is probably the number one reason I started my blog (www.theDailyHatch.org ) a little over a year ago. The results have been overwhelming. I have had over 170,000 hits and have even been quoted in a national magazine.

Back in the summer of 2011, 66 brave souls in the Republican party voted against the debt ceiling compromise in the House of Representatives and I actually took time to put up 48 different posts praising those 66 tea-party type conservatives. One of them was Cliff Stearns. Representative Stearns actually went on C-Span and mentioned President Obama’s March 2006 vote against raising the debt ceiling and he quoted him directly. The funny thing is I agreed totally with every word of his speech.

Why do we have to keep spending money like this? Here is an excellent article from the Cato Institute that reflects my views:

Hitting the Ceiling

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on March 7, 2012

This article appeared in National Review (Online) on March 7, 2012.

If you liked last year’s battle over raising the debt ceiling, just get ready for the fight to come.

Last summer’s agreement, you will recall, raised the federal government’s debt limit from $15.194 trillion to $16.394 trillion in exchange for promised future reductions in spending. Until recently, the consensus has been that federal borrowing will bump up against the new limit sometime between late November of this year and early January 2013.

But buried in President Obama’s 2013 budget was the news that the national debt will hit $16.334 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2012, or September 30, 2012. This is just $60 billion below the current debt limit. Since the federal government is continuing to borrow at a rate of over $130 billion a month, we will likely reach the debt ceiling by mid-October — before Election Day.

From a budgeting perspective, there will not be an immediate crisis. The Treasury Department could, if it chooses, employ “extraordinary measures” to enable the government to keep paying its bills until well after the elections. Despite their name, these measures are not all that “extraordinary,” involving such things as delaying contributions to the civil-service pension fund or suspending sales of certain nonessential securities. In fact, the Treasury used such measures last year from May until the final debt agreement in August, and no one really noticed.

Can Republicans really be trusted to fight for spending cuts just weeks before the election?

But as a political matter, it will be a very different matter.

Suppose that instead of using such measures to push off the day of reckoning until after the election, President Obama threatens default. Suppose he insists on a tax increase as part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling, and threatens international economic chaos and a collapsing stock market if Republicans fail to go along. Can Republicans really be trusted to fight for spending cuts instead, just weeks before the election?

And regardless of what happens before the election, another fight over the debt ceiling will be coming shortly thereafter. Every Republican candidate will have to go on record about whether or not they would raise the debt ceiling and what concessions they would demand.

Republicans, of course, will have a good argument to make about how the president’s spending has driven up the debt. The fact that a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling barely lasted a year could be powerful. But Republicans would have a better time making this argument if they were actually doing something to reduce spending. After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined.

And Republicans continue to talk about undoing the sequester that is responsible for more than half the projected savings to come out of the 2011 deal. In particular, Republicans want to undo cuts to the defense budget, and may be willing to give up domestic-spending cuts in exchange.

Meanwhile, what of Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee after last night’s primaries? Can anyone think of a single major spending program that Romney would eliminate? (Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood doesn’t count, especially given the way Republicans mishandled the contraceptive-mandate debate).

President Obama’s reckless spending could be a godsend to Republicans. It was, after all, debt and spending that energized the Tea Party and led to the 2010 election wave. Not only is it an issue that unites all factions of the Republican base, it is also of importance to independents and suburbanites, including those suburban women who have been turned off by the Republican-primary debate.

But if Republicans don’t want to be blindsided by President Obama come October, they need to start preparing for this debate now.

Related posts:

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 31)

Congressmen Tim Huelskamp on the debt ceiling Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 31) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25)

Uploaded by RepJoeWalsh on Jun 14, 2011 Our country’s debt continues to grow — it’s eating away at the American Dream. We need to make real cuts now. We need Cut, Cap, and Balance. The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25) This post today is a part of a series […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15)

Sen Obama in 2006 Against Raising Debt Ceiling The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 14)

Today I read a post by Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog concerning the falling poll numbers for the Tea Party.   Wednesday, August 17, 2011 – 06:54:18 The Tea Party: is the fun over An interesting New York Times op-ed reviews the plunging poll approval numbers for the Tea Party and delves into the […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 7)

Duncan Hunter at San Diego Eagle Forum.MP4 The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 7) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 6)

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 6) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 5)

Rep. Quayle on Fox News with Neil Cavuto   The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 5) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 2)

“What good is a debt limit that is always increased?” The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 2) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 1)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal. Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon […]

Michele Bachmann voted against Debt Deal (House Roll Call)

Bachmann Explains “No” Vote on Raising the Debt Ceiling Uploaded by RepMicheleBachmann on Aug 2, 2011 On Monday, August 1, 2011, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann appeared on “Hannity” to explain why she voted “no” on the plan to raise the debt ceiling. _______________________________________ Full House roll call By: Associated Press August 1, 2011 08:46 PM EDT […]

March 8, 2012 – 5:12 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Cato Institute:Spending is our problem Part 1

Uploaded by on Feb 15, 2011

Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, speaks at Moving Forward on Entitlements: Practical Steps to Reform, NTUF’s entitlement reform event at CPAC, on Feb. 11, 2011.

People think that we need to raise more revenue but I say we need to cut spending. Take a look at a portion of this article from the Cato Institute:

The Damaging Rise in Federal Spending and Debt

by Chris Edwards

Joint Economic Committee
United States Congress

Joint Economic CommitteeUnited States Congress

Added to cato.org on September 20, 2011

This testimony was delivered on September 20, 2011.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My comments will examine the likely damage to the economy if federal spending and debt keep spiraling upward.

Rising Spending and Debt

Federal spending and debt have soared over the past decade. As a share of gross domestic product, spending grew from 18 percent in 2001 to 24 percent in 2011, while debt held by the public jumped from 33 percent to 67 percent. The causes of this expansion include the costs of wars, growing entitlement programs, rising spending on discretionary programs, and the 2009 economic stimulus bill.

Projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that without reforms spending and debt will keep on rising for decades to come.1 Under the CBO’s “alternative fiscal scenario,” spending will grow to about 34 percent of GDP by 2035, as shown in Figure 1, and debt held by the public will increase to at least 187 percent of GDP.2

Hopefully, we will never reach anywhere near those levels of spending and debt. Going down that path would surely trigger major financial crises, as the ongoing debt problems in Europe illustrate. It is also very unlikely that Americans would support such a huge expansion of the government. The results of the 2010 elections suggest that the public has already started to revolt against excessive federal spending and debt.

Some policymakers are calling for a “balanced” package of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce federal deficits. But CBO projections show that the long-term debt problem is not a balanced one — it is caused by historic increases in spending, not shortages of revenues. Revenues have fallen in recent years due to the poor economy, but when growth returns, revenues are expected to rise to the normal level of about 18 percent of GDP — even with all current tax cuts in place. It is spending that is expected to far exceed normal levels in the future, and thus spending is behind the huge increases in debt that are projected.

1 Congressional Budget Office, “Long-Term Budget Outlook,” June 2011.
2 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Economic Outlook Database,” September 2011, Annex Table 25, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls.

March 7, 2012 – 11:23 pm Categories: Cato Institute, spending out of control | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , , |

Tributes to Andrew Breitbart from Heritage Foundation Scholars (Part 4)

These comments below were taken from the following article:

Todd Thurman

March 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm

___________

Ericka Andersen: Nearly four years ago, I read a profile piece on Andrew Breitbart in the New York Observer, calling him an “internet guru turned right wing messiah.”

I was enthralled by the energy of his quotes, they radiated off the page. This guy was fearless – completely unconcerned with offending anyone. I tracked down an email address and asked if I could interview him for a story, he responded within minutes “How about now?”, he asked.

In the next hour Brietbart answered every question about his personality and his activism with vigor and excitement. Thank god I was taping the conversation because he had a lot to say – really fast.

Little did I know, he’d soon be known by just about everyone. That inspiring energy I heard on the phone would be the first of many times that a hyperactive Breitbart would make me say, “Man, he’s good.” His passion and conviction were contagious. He moved fast but always apologized if he was wrong. In that interview four years ago, we discussed the dismissal of conservative beliefs in Hollywood. His disdain for big name Hollywood liberals was well known – and part of what fueled his drive to combat media bias.

“Everyone [in Hollywood] I meet makes me feel like I need to be louder more obnoxious to make sure their story is told so more people feel comfortable to come out of the woodwork,” Breitbart told me that day four years ago.

He always remembered me when I saw him after that interview, though I was usually one among many fighting a big crowd for a chance to say hello.

He was fighting for others, for liberty, for America. He did it with gusto and that big, vivacious personality will be sorely missed. Rest in Peace, Andrew.

Kate Nix: Coming to Heritage from one of the country’s most liberal college towns, I know it takes a lot of courage to stand up for your beliefs in the face of strong opposition. Andrew Breitbart was the poster child for fearlessness within the conservative movement, and was a great role model for myself and others who want to fight for what they believe in. The last time I encountered Breitbart in person, he was surrounded by young people, hearing and sharing ideas and encouraging everyone to make their voices heard. I hope his passion and unbreakable spirit will continue to inspire, shake things up, and advance the principles he fought for through those he leaves behind.

Ann Coulter pays tribute to Andrew Breitbart…

Uploaded by on Mar 1, 2012

On the Dennis Prager show along with Ed Ames, Clint Howard, and Morgan Brittney, with Mark Isler filling in for Dennis
__________________

Mark Levin Gives You Memories From The Bunker In His Tribute To Andrew Breitbart

Uploaded by on Mar 1, 2012

Mark Levin Gives You Memories From The Bunker In His Tribute To Andrew Breitbart

______________

Related posts:

Rush Limbaugh’s Moving Tribute To Andrew Breitbart

Rush Limbaugh’s Moving Tribute To Andrew Breitbart Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Rush Limbaugh’s Moving Tribute To Andrew Breitbart Related posts: Sean Hannity’s tribute to his dear friend Andrew Breitbart March 1, 2012 – 3:03 pm Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Sean Hannity – In My Fathers House There Are Many Mansion […]

Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012 02102012 – FULL SPEECH

Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012 02102012 – FULL SPEECH Uploaded by bydesign001 on Feb 10, 2012 Courtesy of Mediaite via the Right Scoop. Related posts: Sean Hannity’s tribute to his dear friend Andrew Breitbart March 1, 2012 – 3:03 pm Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Sean Hannity – In My Fathers House There Are […]

Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Sean Hannity – In My Fathers House There Are Many Mansion And I Know Andrew Is In One Of Them I got a chance to meet Andrew once and it was on May 25, 2011. He was very gracious and I really enjoyed visiting with him. Below are […]

Rep. Louie Gohmert Pays Tribute to Andrew Breitbart

Rep. Louie Gohmert Pays Tribute to Andrew Breitbart Uploaded by GohmertTX01 on Mar 1, 2012 Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor about the life and legacy of his friend, conservative writer and American patriot, Andrew Breitbart. “Thank you, dear God, for sharing this extraordinary gift that was Andrew Breitbart with us. We […]

Andrew Breitbart spoke to Little Rock, Arkansas group May 25, 2011 (Part 4,the media world has changed with cable, Fox News, and the web)

Andrew Breibart spoke in Little Rock on May 25, 2011 Andrew Breitbart in Arkansas The second monthly luncheon with featured speaker Andrew Breitbart was excellent. (Check out the Tolbert Report for more coverage of this event.) First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN   who came up with the idea of this luncheon, […]

Andrew Breitbart spoke to Little Rock, Arkansas group May 25, 2011 (Part 3,one time default cultural liberal, but now a conservative )

Andrew Breibart spoke in Little Rock on May 25, 2011 Andrew Breitbart in Arkansas Dave Elswick Chicago and Introduction.wmv Conservative film activist Andrew Breitbart spoke in Little Rock on Wednseday May 25th at the Hilton Hotel. The room was packed with conservative activist and Tea Party members. Breitbart talked about dealing with the liberal media […]

Andrew Breitbart spoke to Little Rock, Arkansas group May 25, 2011 (Part 2, video clips )

Andrew Breibart spoke in Little Rock on May 25, 2011 to a packed room. The second monthly luncheon with featured speaker Andrew Breitbart was excellent. (Check out the Tolbert Report for more coverage of this event.) First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN   who came up with the idea of this luncheon, […]

Andrew Breitbart spoke to Little Rock, Arkansas group May 25, 2011 (Part 1, taking on Bill Maher was liberating)

  Andrew Breitbart speaking in Little Rock on May 25, 2011. Andrew Breitbart – Taking Down the Corrupt and Biased, Leftist Mainstream Media Andrew Breitbart joined Hannity to talk about his new book “Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World!”, and about his mission to take down the corrupt and biased, leftist mainstream […]

May 6, 2011 CBS News interview with Andrew Brietbart

Andrew Breitbart Andrew Breitbart CBS News reported on May 6, 2011: Conservative publisher Andrew Brietbart sat down for an extensive interview with CBSNews.com Friday in which he discussed his disdain for the mainstream media, offered his perspective on the Republican presidential field, said President Obama should have released a post-mortem photo of Osama bin Laden, and complained […]

March 7, 2012 – 3:10 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Milton Friedman:“A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy” VTR: 5/31/77 Transcript and video clip (Part 3)

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (3 of 6)

Uploaded by on Aug 9, 2009

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________

Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77:

Friedman: Now what’s wrong with that? Two things are wrong. First place, nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. We talked about New York City. About seven or eight years ago (I’ve forgotten exactly when it was – Kenneth Galbraith in a n article in New York magazine said there were no problems in New York that could not be solved by the city spending enough money. If my memory serves me right, he said by doubling New York’s budget. Well, in the meantime, New York’s budget has quadrupled, and the problems have gotten worse, not better. And that’s cause and effect. Because when you say spend more money, whose money? The City of New York spent more money, but where did it get it? From its citizens. There is no more money in total to be spent. But nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. So you had more money being spent carelessly, and less money being spent carefully.

In the second place, equally important, you cannot spend somebody else’s money unless you first get it. How do you get it? Ultimately and fundamentally be sending a policeman to take it away from him. So the concept of doing good with somebody else’s money has force or coercion built into it as an essential feature. And those flows, the waste which arises out of spending somebody else’s money and the coercion which is unavoidable, destroy the good and the idea of doing good and convert it into doing bad.

HEFFNER: I’m interested in your second point because I’ve wondered, as you were addressing yourself to the subject, I’ve wondered whether it would be the philosophical climate that’s created, that of the policeman who comes and takes those tax monies, those funds, or is your opposition that of the economist? Is it that of the economist of that of the philosopher? Can we distinguish between them?

FRIEDMAN: We can distinguish between them very much. The economist, as economist, I can say what will be the consequences of doing something or other. As an economist, if you say to me – let me take a New York City problem – if I analyze to you the disastrous consequences of rent control in New York City, the effect which that has had on the deterioration of buildings, on the abandonment of buildings, on the reduction in the tax base, on slums, all of that is a predictable consequence of rent control. It’s a straight matter of technical economics that can be shown with a curve. Wherever rent control was introduced, whenever it was introduced, whether in Britain or in France or anywhere, it doesn’t matter; that’s purely a technical consequence of rent control. On the other hand, if I say, regardless of the consequences it is morally wrong for a government official to force me to rent a piece of property to you for less than the price at which I would voluntarily rent it, at that point I am now speaking as a man with values and philosophy. That is to say, you have both principle and expediency involved. The economist talks to the expediency; and the philosopher, the ethicist, the human being, talks to the principle.

HEFFNER: Now, the philosophers may disagree. Do the economists on this question of rent control and its relationship to New York’s…

FRIEDMAN: Oh, no, no. On rent control there’s no disagreement whatsoever. Oh, the interesting thing is that the public at large believes that economists disagree. The fact is that on most technical subjects in economics you’ll find almost no disagreement.

HEFFNER: All right.

FRIEDMAN: Rent control is certainly one example in which I will challenge you to find from the professional economists from the left to the right, I will challenge you to find anybody who will defend rent control from a technical economic point of view.

HEFFNER: All right. Now, when the program began, I was going to refer to you as this country’s foremost conservative economist. And you demerit that, you object to that characterization. And I can appreciate that. Is it not appropriate or proper though to say that there are economists in this country who fall into a camp that one might generally say is on the right, and others who fall into a camp that others might generally say is on the left?

FRIEDMAN: Yes.

HEFFNER: Or can we not say that economists disagree on major issues?

FRIEDMAN: Well, they disagree on major political issues. The question is whether they disagree on economic grounds or on noneconomic grounds. First, my objection to conservatives is not the same as the objections to what’s right or left. Right or left are very ambiguous terms. But conservative is a very definite, clear term. A conservative is somebody who wants to conserve, who keeps things as they are.

HEFFNER: And you don’t like the way things are.

FRIEDMAN: I don’t like things. I want to change them. I’m a radical. Who are conservatives today? The New Dealers, the people who are called in this country erroneously, liberals, the people who are in favor of big government. Mayor Beame’s a conservative. Hubert Humphrey’s a conservative. They want to continue along the path we’ve been going. You have two different dimensions along which, it seems to me, you can consider people. One of them they want to keep things the way they are, or change them. Conservative or radical. From that point of view I’m a radical. Second, insofar as things are changed, in what direction do they want to change them? You may have radicals who are people who are not conservative, who want to move farther in the direction we’ve been going, who want to have a completely socialized state, a completely collectivist state. And there is seems to me to the right terms are the ancient and honorable term “liberal” in its original sense and meaning of and pertaining to freedom; people like myself who want to maintain a free society. A word that has been much abused. And collectivists or stateists. People who want to have things organized through the state.

Now, the interesting thing about your question about economists is that there is a misleading impression of disagreement among economists. I’ve had this experience many times. Get a dozen people in a room together, some of them economists and some noneconomists, political scientists, sociologists, journalists, whatever they may be. Start any subject going. Within 15 minutes all the economists will be on the same side. Whatever their political persuasion is. Now, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have different political views and different political attitudes. But those derive very little from their technical economic discipline, and a great deal from their values, their political orientations. Let me show you, again illustrate. When President Ford two years ago and more had a summit conference in Washington at which there were a collection of economists, to discuss the problems of that time, there was a manifesto issued by all the economists present with the exception I think of two, in favor of a long list of 28 (I think it was) measures at reducing governmental intervention into the economy. Economists from the left to the right were in favor of eliminating interstate commerce commissions in control of rail, of CAB control of airfares. And I now have forgotten of the… But there were, I think 28 such items on which they agreed. So I think the appearance of disagreement is very much greater than the reality.

What happens – let me take the energy problem we started about – suppose you were to ask economists – I don’t care whether they’re on the left or the right – “What would be the appropriate way to handle the energy problem if you could neglect all considerations of political feasibility? As technical economists, how should the energy problem be handled?” I will lay you a large wager that the bulk of the economists, 80, 90 percent will say, “Oh, well, that’s easy. You should let the market go. Let market price oil and market price natural gas.” Among the things that all the economists were agreed on at that summit was that you ought to get rid of the price ceilings on natural gas.

HEFFNER: Now, their differences will arise from what?

FRIEDMAN: At this level their differences will arise because they will say, “Oh, of course that’s the right solution.” But you know it’s not perfectly feasible. And so they go down the trap you were trying to drive me down before. Having accepted that it’s not politically feasible, then instead of being in favor of what I think is the right thing, I’m going to try to ask which is the least bad thing. So the economist comes out and says “Well, as the second best thing…” — he doesn’t even say this, but he thinks it – he says, “Well, I really have to be practical. It’s not feasible. You’re going to continue with price control on natural gas. You’re going to continue with price control of fuel crude oil. So maybe it would be a little better if we allowed those fixed prices to be higher, so we’ll come out in favor of higher prices and not attack the controls.”

HEFFNER: But now, Professor Friedman, you use the word “political.” You say this is a political decision. Is it political, or is it philosophical? Does it relate to the desire to have one’s party reelected? Elect, elect, elect; or spend, spend, spend and the elect, elect, elect? Or is it related to the sense of what we can impose upon the human beings who make up the electorate?

FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, you’re trying to put things into watertight categories that cannot be put there.

HEFFNER: Then take them out.

FRIEDMAN: Human beings are, every human being has a capacity of knowing what he believes is the right thing is also the right thing for the country.

March 7, 2012 – 8:22 am Categories: Milton Friedman | Post a comment

Influences on Woody Allen’s pictures “Woody Wednesday”

Here is a great link on Woody Allen.

midnight-in-paris-movie-image-slice-01

Great website discusses the influences on Woody Allen:

kenny

about 3 years ago

In interview after interview, down through the decades Woody Allen has spoken repeatedly of his love of Ingmar Bergman and the influenece he’s had upon his films. While Interiors is clearly an homage to Bergman, Cries and Whispers in particular, to me his movies have been much more influenced by the films of Fellini. Stardust Memories is clearly a tip of the cap to 8 1/2, Celebrity to La Dolce Vita, Radio Days to Amarcord and Sweet And Lowdown to La Strada in that they both featured an emotionally crippled protagonist who realizes too late he’s fallen in love with a simple minded young woman.

Justin Biberkopf

about 3 years ago

Kenny, the La Strada connection is very perceptive. Sweet and Lowdown being less tragic, of course. But yes, I just rewatched Amarcord and was reminded of how much the whole structure of Radio Days borrows from it. Amarcord is such a dense text by comparison, though. At its funniest, I think it’s funnier than a lot of Allen’s movies, too. But then, Fellini is generally more of a comic director than Bergman, so that’s another connection with Woody.

kenny

about 3 years ago

Good points Justin. I was even tempted to compare Le notti di Cabiria to Mighty Aphrodite but decided their only real similarities is they both feature a prostitute as a main character.

Charulata

about 3 years ago

Also, the last scene of ‘Sweet and Lowdown’ seems to be a direct reference to the last scene of ‘La Strada’.

leah

about 3 years ago

Stardust memories is totally Woody’s 8 1/2. He said himself said in an interview, “I am not even half of the Fellini of 8 1/2”

Justin Biberkopf

about 3 years ago

Yes, the dream sequence that starts Stardust Memories is very Fellini-esque, with the sensuous woman and the party on the other train. Woody Allen isn’t half of Marcello Mastroinanni, either.

Jeff D

about 3 years ago

A few Woody Allen films are built around the conceit of a fake documentary (Zelig, Husbands and Wives, Sweet and Lowdown), a device that he may have gotten from Fellini (The Clowns, Roma, Intervista), although Bergman also uses this device at least once that I can think of: at the end of Hour of the Wolf. But Woody Allen’s borrowings aren’t limited to Fellini and Bergman. Manhattan Murder Mystery is basically Rear Window, for example.

kenny

about 3 years ago

That’s a great point Jeff D about the fake documentary device although Allen did also use it as early as 1969 with Take The Money and Run. Perhaps no director has used it as well as Fellini did with Roma.

Jeff D

about 3 years ago

Fellini also used it as early as 1969 in Director’s Notebook, which I believe was made for American television.

Jeff D

about 3 years ago

Another Woody Allen movie that bears comparison to a Fellini movie is Alice to Juliet of the Spirits.

stewart SFA Adams

about 3 years ago

Woody Allen adresses the camera in Annie Hall like several characters do in Amarcord

horace

about 3 years ago

I would think that Purple Rose of Cairo was inspired by The White Sheik, a movie I know Woody loves.

kenny

about 3 years ago

More good points and similarities than I was aware of.

hari

almost 3 years ago

Fellini seems to be the bigger influence primarily because of the fact that he was a lot more unneurotic, a lot less austere and not as rigorous as Bergman was. If u watch Fellini’s films there are always moments of quiet humor in them. Like in 81/2, u see Guido being sorrounded by his cast and crew asking him for directions, he sees a person coming ,quietly avoids talking to him by taking another guy in his fold and whispering in his ear, “I just called you, cos I did not want to talk to that guy”.. Also, Fellini’s films are soaked in a dream-like structure. Bergman’s films were probably born out of his own dreams, but they were then religiously fitted into a certain kind of worldly realism.
But then at the end of the day, I always watch Woody’s films to see the fun of it, to revel in the parody it brings with itself.
They should only be seen as approximations of something great that has been done before. To me, they are mere condensations..

Other posts with Woody Allen:

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 15, Luis Bunuel)

Belle de Jour Presentation In a film class my partner and I did a video presentation on the film Belle de Jour and the filmmaker Luis Bunuel. Bunuel was a surrealist, so if the video doesn’t quite makes sense, its not supposed to. ___________________________________________________ I am presently going through the characters referenced in Woody Allen’s […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 14, Henri Matisse)

I am currently going through the characters referenced in the Woody Allen movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am looking at Henri Matisse. Below is a press release from a museum in San Francisco:  the steins were known for their saturday evening salons, where artists, writers, musicians, intellectuals, and collectors gathered to discuss contemporary art, […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 13, Amedeo Modigliani)

Adriana and Gil are seen above walking together in the movie “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana was a fictional character who was Picasso’s mistress in the film. Earlier she had been Modigliani’s mistress and later Georges Braque’s mistress before moving on to Picasso according to the film story line. Actually Picasso had taken girls from others […]

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 12, Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel)

An article from Biography.com below. I am currently going through all the personalities mentioned in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am spending time on Coco Chanel. By the way, I know that some of you are wondering how many posts I will have before I am finished. Right now I have plans […]

The characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 11, Rodin)

The Thinker (1879–1889) is among the most recognized works in all of sculpture. In fact, below you can see Paul who constantly is showing up Gil with his knowledge about these pieces of art. He shows off while describing Rodin’s life story when all four of them are taking in “The Thinker.” However, he is […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 10 Salvador Dali)

Artists and bohemians inspired Woody Allen for ‘Midnight in Paris I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Today we will look at Salvador Dali. In this clip below you will see when Picasso […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 9, Georges Braque)

2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Lea Seydoux as Gabrielle in “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana and Gil are seen above walking together in the movie “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana was a fictional character who was Picasso’s mistress in the film. Earlier she had been Georges Braque’s mistress before moving on to Picasso according to […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 8, Henri Toulouse Lautrec)

How Should We Then Live 7#3 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.” Paul Gauguin and Henri Toulouse Lautrec were the greatest painters of the post-impressionists. They are pictured together in 1890 in Paris in Woody Allen’s new movie “Midnight in Paris.” My favorite philosopher Francis Schaeffer […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 7 Paul Gauguin)

How Should We Then Live 7#1 Dr. Francis Schaeffer examines the Age of Non-Reason and he mentions the work of Paul Gauguin. 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Kurt Fuller as John and Mimi Kennedy as Helen in “Midnight in Paris.” I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 6 Gertrude Stein)

Midnight In Paris – SPOILER Discussion by What The Flick?! Associated Press Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas in 1934 This video clip below discusses Gertrude Stein’s friendship with Pablo Picasso: I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 5 Juan Belmonte)

2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Gad Elmaleh as Detective Tisserant in “Midnight in Paris.” I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Juan Belmonte was the most famous bullfighter of the time […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 4 Ernest Heminingway)

  Woody Allen explores fantasy world with “Midnight in Paris” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway in “Midnight in Paris.” The New York Times Ernest Hemingway, around 1937 I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 3 Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald)

What The Flick?!: Midnight In Paris – Review by What The Flick?! 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald and Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in “Midnight in Paris.” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 2 Cole Porter)

The song used in “Midnight in Paris” I am going through the famous characters that Woody Allen presents in his excellent movie “Midnight in Paris.” This series may be a long one since there are so many great characters. De-Lovely – Movie Trailer De-Lovely – So in Love – Kevin Kline, Ashley Judd & Others […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 1 William Faulkner)

Photo by Phill Mullen The only known photograph of William Faulkner (right) with his eldest brother, John, was taken in 1949. Like his brother, John Faulkner was also a writer, though their writing styles differed considerably. My grandfather, John Murphey, (born 1910) grew up in Oxford, Mississippi and knew both Johncy and “Bill” Faulkner. He […]

I love Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” was so good that I will be doing a series on it. My favorite Woody Allen movie is Crimes and Misdemeanors and I will provide links to my earlier posts on that great movie. Movie Guide the Christian website had the following review: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is the […]

Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas (Coldplay’s spiritual search Part 6)

Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago: Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas What does King Solomon, the movie director Woody Allen and the modern rock bands Coldplay and Kansas have in common? All four took on the issues surrounding death, the meaning of life and a possible afterlife, although they all came up with their own conclusions on […]

Insight into what Coldplay meant by “St. Peter won’t call my name” (Series on Coldplay’s spiritual search, Part 3)

Coldplay seeks to corner the market on earnest and expressive rock music that currently appeals to wide audiences Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin’s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it […]

March 7, 2012 – 8:08 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment