March for Life in Little Rock 2pm Jan 22, 2012

34th Annual March For Life
Sunday, January 22, 2012
2:00 PM Capitol and Louisiana
Downtown Little Rock

Will your face appear in pictures at the next March for Life? We certainly hope that you will consider joining us each January for this important pro-life event. Hundreds of people from across the state make the annual march to remember the lives lost since the January 22, 1973 Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion in our nation. Here’s what some past attendees have said about their experience at the March for Life:

“The most awesome part of the march is that moment when you get close enough to hear “Amazing Grace” coming from the steps of the capitol.”

“The thing that struck me most my first time was the number of youth and clergy that were marching with us.”

“I love to see the families, children in strollers and wagons, marching together for life.”

The March for Life is for everyone, those who are not able to walk the 13 blocks to the Capitol bring a lawn chair and watch the awesome sight of thousands of people marching peacefully and prayerfully to the sounds of Amazing Grace on bagpipes.”

“It always gives me chills and brings tears to my eyes to see the huge crowd peacefully remembering the lives that have been lost to abortion.”

_______________________

Ronald Reagan - The Best Of Speeches: Ronald Reagan

A Ronald Reagan radio address from 1975 addresses the topics of abortion and adoption. This comes from a collection of audio commentaries titled “Reagan in His Own Voice.”

I just wanted to share with you one of the finest prolife papers I have ever read, and it is by President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

I have a son named Wilson Daniel Hatcher and he is named after two of the most respected men I have ever read about : Daniel from the Old Testament and Ronald Wilson Reagan. I have studied that book of Daniel for years and have come to respect that author who was a saint who worked in two pagan governments but he never compromised. My favorite record was the album “No Compromise” by Keith Green and on the cover was a picture from the Book of Daniel.

One of the thrills of my life was getting to hear President Reagan speak in the beginning of November of 1984 at the State House Convention Center in Little Rock.  Immediately after that program I was standing outside on Markham with my girlfriend Jill Sawyer (now wife of 25 years) and we were alone on a corner and President was driven by and he waved at us and we waved back.

My former pastor from Memphis, Adrian Rogers, got the opportunity to visit with President Ronald Reagan on several occasions.

Take time to read this below and comment below and let me know what you thought of his words.

June 10, 2004, 10:30 a.m.
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
Ronald Reagan’s pro-life tract.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited. It ran in the Review‘s Spring 1983, issue and is reprinted here with permission.

The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators — not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973 is a good time for us to pause and reflect. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation’s wars.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a “right” so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.

As an act of “raw judicial power” (to use Justice White’s biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority inRoev. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead,Roe v. Wadehas become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.

Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: “. . . any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. We saw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of “Baby Doe” in Bloomington because the child had Down’s Syndrome.

Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to head the largest department of our government, Health and Human Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that “the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children.”

Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion — efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of “freedom of choice,” have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

________________________________________________

I remember when President Carter and candidate Reagan debated in 1980 and the subject of abortion came up. Reagan said that if you were on a dusty area and you found someone laying down would you bury him without knowing for sure if he is alive or not? It is the same with the case of abortion.

January 6, 2012 – 11:58 am Categories: Prolife, Ronald Reagan | Post a comment

Heritage Foundation looks at good and bad trends of 2011 (Part 3)

 

On http://www.heritage.org I found a great article and I wanted to share it with you over the next few days. Mike Kelsey in his article “2011 in Review: Who’s Been Naughty, Who’s Been Nice?,” December 30, 2011 wrote:

Americans are blessed to have inherited a constitutional republic. If we are to keep it, we must vigilantly preserve the Constitution upon which it stands. As 2011 draws to a close, we made a list (and checked it twice!) of the year’s most important constitutional trends.

Nice: Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare
While the nullification efforts were roundly defeated, conservatives did mount a very successful constitutional challenge to Obamacare. Several states passed a Health Care Freedom Actdesigned to provoke a legal challenge to Obamacare. A majority of states and several individuals then brought lawsuits against Obamacare. Appellate courts upheld some cases and struck down others. Most significantly, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a suit brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business and declared the individual mandate unconstitutional. On November 14th, the Supreme Court announced that it would rule on the 11th Circuit Court’s decision in June 2012.
Naughty: Progressives Run Wild
2011 was above all a year of unbridled Progressivism. Ostensibly organized to protest crony capitalism, the Occupy Wall Street movement quickly devolved into unruly factions seeking redistributive government programs. In stark contrast to the Tea Party’s peaceful support of the Constitution, the occupiers blatantly disregarded property rights and the rule of law and denounced America’s representative government. Such prominent progressives as Peter Orzag and North Carolina’s Governor Bev Purdue suggested that America needs “less democracy” and more centralized administration. In his seminal speech in Osawatomie, Obama drew upon populist rhetoric to advocate a thoroughly progressive vision of government where bureaucratic experts enforce political and economic “fairness” rather than letting the American people govern themselves.

January 6, 2012 – 11:35 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 4 of 7)

The massive growth of central government that started after the depression has continued ever since. If anything, it has even speeded up in recent years. Each year there are more buildings in Washington occupied by more bureaucrats administering more laws. The Great Depression persuaded the public that private enterprise was a fundamentally unstable system. That the depression represented a failure of free market capitalism, that the government had to step in to perform the essential function of stabilizing the economy, of providing security for its citizens. The widespread acceptance of these views, sparked the enormous growth in the power of government that has occurred in the decade since and that is still going on. We now know as many economists knew then that the truth about the depression was very different. The depression was produced or at the very least, made far worse by perverse monetary policies followed by the U.S. authorities.
Far from being a failure of free market capitalism, the depression was a failure of government. Unfortunately, that failure did not end with The Great Depression. Ever since, government has been attempting to fine tune the economy. In practice, just as during the depression, far from promoting stability, the government has itself, been the major single source of instability.
DISCUSSION
Participants: Robert McKenzie, Moderator; Milton Friedman; Robert Lekachman, Professor of Economics, City University, New York; Nicholas Von Hoffman, Syndicated Columnist; Peter Temin, Professor of Economics, MIT; Peter Jay, British Ambassador to the United States, 1977_1979
MCKENZIE: And now we join the invited guests here at the University of Chicago, as they discuss Friedman’s interpretation of those events and their implications for today.
LEKACHMAN: The 1929 crash, the succeeding calamities, were not the first of their kind. Capitalism has been subject to severe depressions since the beginning of the industrial revolution. This was the first time, however, government tried to intervene seriously. It did it very badly. The lesson I would draw is a very simple one: Government is unavoidable; the expectations of the public are proper; government ought to do better oddly enough the government did do better until very, very recently. Until, I would say, October 1973, even, government did reasonably well in fulfilling the expectations of the public. I’m an unrepentant proponent of government intervention, intelligent government intervention. But I would describe much of the intervention which has followed the great 1929 crash as quite intelligent.
MCKENZIE: Let’s take a further look, though, at this argument that just as during the depression, far from promoting stability, the government has itself been the major single source of instability.
VON HOFFMAN: I_I don’t think there is any stability this side of the graveyard. I mean, I think __ I don’t think it matters what system you’re working under, you are not going to __ you are not going to have a level and hold it under any system with living human beings.
TEMIN: Governments are larger now and therefore more of a source of an influence for good and for bad. And I think like Mr. Von Hoffman that you can’t get perfect stability, given that you’re going to have governments, given that there are legitimate functions of governments, there are also risks in having the government be as active as it is.
MCKENZIE: Peter Jay.
JAY: I think that government is a god that has failed. I think that we have too much of it and need less of it. I think it has failed to prevent both the modern forms of economic instability and the prewar ones. I do not, however, think that government is the original or primary source of that instability, and I do not think that simply getting rid of the government, or greatly reducing it, which I’m in favor of, will, by itself, remove the instability.
LEKACHMAN: I would put it this way: There was __ there was a great economist, with a suitably esoteric doctrine, which could nevertheless be translated as Dr. Friedman did in the film, into simple English, at the same time as there was the widespread hardship of The Great Depression and the natural yearning of human beings not to repeat anything like it. So you have a coincidence of an appropriate theory, with an appropriate public sentiment, and I suppose the symbol in the United States was the passage of 1946 of the Employment Act of that year. Which, it was a weak measure, but it was nevertheless a public declaration of an obligation of government to do something about employment, and economic prosperity, and a good thing, too.
MCKENZIE: Now that’s the __ really the crux of the matter. Do you agree it was a good thing too, that obligation was accepted by government at that stage?
JAY: I think it’s very important here to distinguish two completely different issues. There is the rather narrow issue as to whether Keynes was right or wrong in believing that you could stabilize the economy with regard to really one essential variable _ unemployment _ by a certain technique which he talked about. We may now think that he was wrong, but that’s a quite separate issue from the broad political philosophical issue associated with socialism, associated with social democrats, and many other so-called left wing political thinkers, that the duty of government, so far as it can, is to concern itself not only with defense and law and order and the traditional things, but also with the social welfare and the economic welfare of a society. Now that’s a broad philosophical __
MCKENZIE: Is that a disaster, as Milton seemed to be implying, or was it a good and helpful, useful thing to happen?
JAY: Well, that is one of the great __ perhaps the greatest of all debates in political philosophy, as to whether or not it is right or is not right to believe that a society, collectively, should concern itself with these things and has the right, having concerned itself, through law and through government and in other ways, to move to try to correct these things.
VON HOFFMAN: Well I just __ it seems to me that Americans have believed that for the last century. I mean William McKinley ran on the slogan of a full dinner pail, so that the notion that this is a government responsibility for prosperity dates from the 1930’s I think is erroneous. What I wonder about after having seen that film is this: We have in 1929 __ we have the man who could have saved it dead two years and in 1946 we’ve got the man who might have saved it dying. So what I have to ask is: Are we doomed to find out the right answer only too late? Is it possible that our __
TEMIN: Or should we just look for somebody who’s recently died.
VON HOFFMAN: Exactly. Rummage the morgues. (Laughter)
MCKENZIE: Well, you asked the question __
FRIEDMAN: No, and I think the question is a very different one. And it goes to much of the discussion to this point. Everybody looks for the right man. You say, “Government __
VON HOFFMAN: You brought’em up.
FRIEDMAN: Those men at that time. Quite right. But a system which depends on the right man is a bad system. The Federal Reserve was a bad system because it depended on the right man working it. The idea of demand management, of the kind of thing we’re talking about where Keynes’ death mattered, was a bad system because it depended on a particular man working it. The notion that the problem that Bob Lekachman brought up, that the problem is not the government interferes, but it does it unintelligently, is again a demand for the right man, the man on the white horse who will know what to do. My whole view is very different. It is that it’s the system that’s wrong, and that we’ve got to have a system that the right way to accomplish these objectives is to have a system which doesn’t depend on whether you happen to have the right man pushing the buttons at the right time.
TEMIN: The problem is somebody has to __
FRIEDMAN: Which relies on the __ on establishing a framework within which an invisible hand, within which the activities of people all over are jointly to produce the kind of result. It won’t produce perfect stability; but it’ll produce a far higher degree of stability, a far greater level of freedom, and a far greater level of prosperity than the kind of thing we’ve had with these governmental interventions.
TEMIN: Somebody still has to design the system. You can’t take the people out of it entirely.
FRIEDMAN: Of course.
TEMIN: Unless you’re in the grave as it says.
FRIEDMAN: Of course, but the __ that doesn’t __
TEMIN: But the question is __ I mean it’s said that generals always fight the last war. How do we know that the system won’t fight the last war? We probably won’t have another depression exactly like 1929 to ’33.
MCKENZIE: But, but __
TEMIN: But that doesn’t say we won’t have another depression or another stagflation or another crisis of some other source.
MCKENZIE: But is this process reversible? Because you argued that the public, having been appalled by The Great Depression, in effect demanded of government that they accept responsibility for wellbeing of the economy, for management of the society and so on. Now, that expectation having been raised, can it be reversed?
VON HOFFMAN: Let me answer a question you didn’t ask and say that it seems to me that what we’re getting here is the question of sort of social astrophysics. And that is, do we have an unseen hand, or are we on the war star where we are trying to design a computer that is going to take care of the navigation of this thing. In other words, it seems to me that’s our central question. Is there a mechanism that you can put right in the center of the spaceship that will operate regardless of who is the captain on the quarterdeck at any one moment in time? I don’t think that’s an economic question. I think that’s a question that goes to religion.
January 6, 2012 – 12:18 am Categories: Current Events, Milton Friedman | Post a comment

Bill Clinton’s welfare reform undone by Obama

.

 When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 they were able to work with President Clinton and get Welfare reform passed which Clinton signed. However, since President Obama got in office he has been trying to stimulate the economy and he abandoned welfare reform.
  • President Ronald Reagan after delivering a speech on television in this 1987 photo.By Doug Mills, APPresident Ronald Reagan after delivering a speech on television in this 1987 photo.
     

    Editor’s note: This article was co-authored by Susan A. Carleson and Robert Knight.

    We knew things weren’t good, but nearly one seventh of all Americans on food stamps? Forty-three million people?

    That’s the news this week from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which noted that only 30 million were on food stamps as recently as 2008. For Big Government fans, this news should trigger a high five. But wait – many of those high fivers are lamenting the “epidemic of obesity” among the poor. Remember, liberalism need not be consistent or effective; it just has to be caring.

    For the average American this food stamp spike should be a wake up call. It exposes two things: One, Obamanomics’ massive government spending is not improving the economy; and, two, poorly designed welfare programs create ever more dependency. Food stamps and other welfare programs were meant to be a safety net for people down on their luck, not a way of life passed from one generation to the next.

    Over the years, the federal government has grown exponentially. The notable exception occurred in 1996 with the passage of welfare reform, which marked the first and only repeal of a Great Society entitlement program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

    That reform, which reversed the incentives for states to increase their welfare rolls, was an unqualified success by every measure. Caseloads dropped by more than two-thirds – from a record 5 million families in 1994 to just 1.6 million families in 2009. Recipients left welfare in droves — most of them to work — and earnings rose as child poverty fell.

    But, following the 2008 election, liberals in Congress and the White House began to dismantle this historic achievement. In the first “stimulus bill” they undermined the 1996 reform, made it easier for states to increase their welfare caseloads without having to meet federal work requirements, and added a host of new welfare programs. These destructive policies must be reversed.

    Ronald Reagan was the first modern president to truly appreciate the wisdom of America’s founders about the virtues of limited government. He understood the dynamics of spending and the inherent danger of overburdening taxpayers and free markets.

    In the early 1970s, when California was headed toward bankruptcy because of its profligate welfare spending, then-Gov. Reagan tapped Robert B. Carleson to design and implement a plan to salvage the state’s budget. And it worked. Welfare rolls plummeted and the state’s most needy received a long-delayed benefit increase. It was a true American success story.

    The ultimate triumph of these efforts was the historic welfare reform of 1996, which freed millions of Americans from the narcotic of dependency. While Bill Clinton deserves credit for ultimately signing this landmark legislation, it was in fact the product of 30 years of Ronald Reagan’s dream and Bob Carleson’s tenacity.

    Ronald Reagan was a man of strong beliefs, and he surrounded himself with policy experts who understood big bureaucracy and who knew how to roll back its overreach through common sense approaches. Sadly, people with those attitudes and know-how have not been in positions of power for many years. And the country has drifted, some would say lurched, leftward in its acceptance of big government.

    But as we all saw last November, complacency reached its limit. Americans now hunger for a return to sensible policies that instill individual responsibility, reduce government and taxes, increase prosperity and create real – not make-work – jobs.

    A new organization, the Carleson Center for Public Policy (CCPP), has been formed to assist this effort by serving as a proxy for “What Reagan would do.” Comprised exclusively of men and women who served under Ronald Reagan and who understand what works, the Center (www.theccpp.org) will offer public policy officials guidance and advice on welfare and entitlement reform.

    For a detailed look at the 25-year fight that truly reformed welfare, see Bob Carleson’s book Government Is the Problem: Memoirs of Ronald Reagan’s Welfare Reformer (American Civil Rights Union, 2010) www.governmentistheproblem.us.

    As we celebrate Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday on February 6, it is appropriate to recall his words:

    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

    This is America. We can do better than offer our children more and more food stamps.

    Robert Knight

    Robert Knight is an author, columnist and frequent contributor to Townhall.

January 5, 2012 – 2:24 pm Categories: 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

January 5, 2012 – 12:32 pm Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Heritage Foundation looks at good and bad trends of 2011 (Part 2)

 

On http://www.heritage.org I found a great article and I wanted to share it with you over the next few days. Mike Kelsey in his article “2011 in Review: Who’s Been Naughty, Who’s Been Nice?,” December 30, 2011 wrote:

Americans are blessed to have inherited a constitutional republic. If we are to keep it, we must vigilantly preserve the Constitution upon which it stands. As 2011 draws to a close, we made a list (and checked it twice!) of the year’s most important constitutional trends.

Naughty: Runaway Bureaucrats
Despite the country’s woes, bureaucrats had no qualms about burdening an already struggling economy with billions of dollars of (sometimes bizarre) regulations. Public outcry put an end to a few of the most ridiculous regulation such as the “Christmas tree tax.” But since bureaucrats are unelected and uncountable to Congress, they were largely undeterred. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, usurped Congress’s legislative authority and issued new vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that (by its own estimates) will cost the economy $8.5 billion per year and raise the price of cars by at least $2,000. Just what we need to help the economy.
Nice: Congress tries to rein in Bureaucrats
This year Congress finally began to take practical steps to regain control of the legislative process. Most importantly, the House passed the REINS Act and the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would give Congress much needed authority to restrain the excesses of unaccountable bureaucrats. Although these bills are unlikely to pass the Senate, they have succeeded in turning public scrutiny upon the nation’s regulatory agencies and—most importantly—in creating a solid precedent for future reform efforts.

January 5, 2012 – 11:41 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

John Calipari’s tribute to mentor Gene Bartow

Memphis State coach Gene Bartow comforts Larry Finch at the awards ceremony after the Tigers lost the NCAA final to UCLA in St. Louis in March 1973. Bartow died Tuesday after a long fight with cancer.

Photo by Wayne Crosslin

Memphis State coach Gene Bartow comforts Larry Finch at the awards ceremony after the Tigers lost the NCAA final to UCLA in St. Louis in March 1973. Bartow died Tuesday after a long fight with cancer.

_______________________

In 1972 I was 11 and I shot the basketball with a side arm method that was faulty. My father sent me to a basketball camp headed up by Gene Bartow and he had several of the Memphis St players like Larry Finch, Ronnie Robinson and Larry Kenon (future NBA star) working with kids at the 3 week long camp. Bartow’s son Murry was a friend I made at that camp. He used to take me to lunch at the Memphis University Student Center. I have not stayed in touch with him since then but now he is  the coach at East Tennessee St.

After the camp was over my shooting method was much better and I had a great respect for Gene Bartow. Bartow died Tuesday after a long battle with cancer.

Below is a tribute from John Calipari:

Received some very, very sad news Tuesday night. My good friend and mentor, Gene Bartow, passed away Tuesday after a long battle with cancer. He was 81.

Not only was he a great coach, he was a great man. He’s going to be sorely missed.

His wife, Ruth, and I talked Monday morning. Both of us cried knowing that it was coming to an end. My heart and my prayers go out to the Bartow family.

Words will never be able to describe how much Gene meant to me, but I wanted to use this space to offer a little tribute to my dear friend. Here is just a sample of what Gene did during his amazing career:

  • Gene was elected to 10 different Hall of Fames, including the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame. He was inducted in 2009 along with Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Wayman Tisdale, Jud Heathcote, Walter Byers, Travis Grant and Bill Wall.
  • He is also a member of the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, the UAB Hall of Fame and the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame.
  • Gene is known as “The Father of UAB Athletics.” He was the school’s first athletics director while serving as the first basketball coach and guided UAB to seven consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances. Gene coached at UAB for 18 seasons and led the school to nine total NCAA Tournaments. None of his 18 teams finished below .500.
  • Before UAB, Gene was the coach at UCLA for two seasons. If there was anybody that could succeed legendary coach John Wooden, it was Gene. He took UCLA to the Final Four before leaving for UAB.
  • In 1973 he led Memphis State to the national championship game.
  • Overall, Gene coached 34 years at six universities after coaching two high schools in Missouri for six years. He is one of the all-time winningest college basketball coaches, racking up 647 wins during his career.
  • His six different colleges included Central Missouri State (1961-64), Valparaiso (1964-70), Memphis (1970-74), Illinois (1974-75), UCLA (1975-77) and UAB (1978-1996).
  • Gene coached the Puerto Rican national team in the 1972 Munich Olympics and served as the head coach of the U.S. national team in 1974.
  • He was the president of Hoops LP, the company that owns the Memphis Grizzlies.
  • Gene began his career coaching at the prep level. His 1957 St. Charles team won the state championship.

_____________________

Memphis Houn'Dawgs president Gene Bartow on Nov. 8, 2000.

Photo by A.J. Wolfe

Memphis Houn’Dawgs president Gene Bartow on Nov. 8, 2000.

Gene Bartow coaches the Memphis State Tigers on January 22, 1972.

Photo by Dave Darnell

Gene Bartow coaches the Memphis State Tigers on January 22, 1972.

Gene Bartow, right, as he is honored by the Memphis Grizzlies on December 11, 2009.

Photo by Nikki Boertman

Gene Bartow, right, as he is honored by the Memphis Grizzlies on December 11, 2009.

(left to right) Head Coach Gene Bartow, Larry Finch (21), Ronnie Robinson (33) and Larry Kenon (35) wait to be interviewed after Memphis State beat Providence in the semi-finals of the Final Four in St. Louis on March 24, 1973.

Photo by The Commercial Appeal files

(left to right) Head Coach Gene Bartow, Larry Finch (21), Ronnie Robinson (33) and Larry Kenon (35) wait to be interviewed after Memphis State beat Providence in the semi-finals of the Final Four in St. Louis on March 24, 1973.

Gene Barton coaches the Memphis State Tigers on December 1, 1970.

Photo by Barney Sellers

Gene Barton coaches the Memphis State Tigers on December 1, 1970.

Coaches John Wooden of UCLA, left and Gene Bartow of Memphis State University are photographed at a press conference in this March 26, 1973 file photo in St. Louis. Wooden called a time-out 35 years ago in the NCAA championship game against Memphis, bringing his UCLA Bruins to the bench. Bill Walton was going off against the Tigers, piling up points inside as fast as the seconds ticked off the clock. (AP Photo, File)

Photo by AP

Coaches John Wooden of UCLA, left and Gene Bartow of Memphis State University are photographed at a press conference in this March 26, 1973 file photo in St. Louis. Wooden called a time-out 35 years ago in the NCAA championship game against Memphis, bringing his UCLA Bruins to the bench. Bill Walton was going off against the Tigers, piling up points inside as fast as the seconds ticked off the clock. (AP Photo, File)

Former Tigers coach Gene Bartow, right, and retired Tiger commentator Jack Eaton trade stories about the 1973 team during a reunion at the Pyramid while team members Ronnie Robinson, left, Wes Westfall and Jim Liss listen on February 16, 2003.

Photo by Jim Weber

Former Tigers coach Gene Bartow, right, and retired Tiger commentator Jack Eaton trade stories about the 1973 team during a reunion at the Pyramid while team members Ronnie Robinson, left, Wes Westfall and Jim Liss listen on February 16, 2003.

January 5, 2012 – 7:19 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 13)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:

THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:

As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.

____________________

SENATOR MARK PRYOR WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE SAME DEMOCRATIC STATE THAT RE-ELECTED HIS FATHER OVER AND OVER, BUT ARKANSAS NOW IS A REPUBLICAN STRONGHOLD. HECK, THE ONLY REASON PRYOR GOT RE-ELECTED IN 2008 WAS BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS THOUGHT FOR SURE HILLARY WOULD BE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL TICKET AND WOULD HAVE COAT TAILS.

Back in 2009 there were 3 Democratic Congressman and 2 Democratic Senators from Arkansas. Now there are 3 Republican Congressman and 1 Republican Senator and the other two seats are held currently by Pryor who is not up for re-election till 2014 and Mike Ross who is vacated his seat at the end of 2012. Could it be that will no longer have any Democrats in Washington representing Arkansas in a couple of years?

I believe that Pryor has miscalculated by opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment and I think that Mike Ross is very popular because of his support of it.

Below is a piece I wrote a while back about Mike Ross.

The Arkansas Times Blog reported today:

U.S. Mike Ross photo

  • U.S. REP. MIKE ROSS

U.S. Mike Rossof Prescott surprised everyone by scheduling an announcement this morning in Little Rock to say he would not seek a seventh term in Congress in 2012.His statement is on the jump. He said he hadn’t decided yet on a race for governor in 2014, which he’s long been expected to make. But his reference to the race indicates it is very much in his sights.

ROSS NEWS RELEASE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Congressman Mike Ross of Prescott on Monday announced he will not be seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Ross, who won re-election in 2010 by 18 points and has no announced opponent, has represented Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District in Congress since 2001. A fifth generation Arkansan, Ross is a former state senator and former small business owner.

Statement from U.S. Congressman Mike Ross:

Representing my home state of Arkansas in the U.S. Congress for the past eleven years has been a real privilege and honor. It is a job that I take very seriously and one that I love. However, as I reflect on turning 50 this year, I believe it is time for me to begin a new chapter in my life by spending more time with my family and exploring new opportunities here at home in Arkansas.

That’s why I have decided not to seek a seventh term to the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District. This was not an easy decision and one that I carefully made after a lot of reflection, thought and prayer.

Last year was a tough political environment to seek re-election. Yet, I won by 18 points—one of the largest margins of any member of Congress in a swing district. The trust and confidence the folks here at home have continually placed in me is something I will never forget. The people of Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District are good, decent, hard working people and I am proud to serve and represent them in the U.S. Congress.

A lot has changed since I was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2000. Congressional campaigns have gone from several months in length to never-ending, costing millions of dollars every two years. As a result, fundraising never ends nor do the political attacks. While I have worked hard to bring folks to the middle to craft commonsense solutions to the many problems that confront our nation, Washington is mired in gridlock, gamesmanship and constant partisan bickering. Too many issues and votes are based on partisan politics rather than good public policy. Despite our many challenges, I remain optimistic that America’s best days are still ahead of us.

I never believed that my service in the U.S. Congress should become a permanent career. This seat never belonged to me—it belongs to the people of Arkansas. And I know there are many bright people in Arkansas ready to step up, go to Washington and offer a new generation of leadership. Simply put, it is someone else’s turn to represent our state in the U.S. Congress.

I have many good memories of my service in the U.S. Congress, and we have helped thousands of people. None of this would have been possible without the support of the people here in Arkansas, and for that, my family and I will always be grateful to them.

I look forward to serving out the remainder of my term in the U.S. Congress, which doesn’t end until January 2013. I will continue to work each and every day on behalf of the people I represent, just as I have faithfully tried to do from the beginning.

I have received a lot of encouragement to run for Governor of Arkansas when Governor Beebe’s term ends in 2014. I’ve always been very upfront and honest in the fact that, as a fifth generation Arkansan, I love our state and would like very much to help lead it at some point in the future. Whether I run for Governor in 2014 is a decision I have not yet made and won’t make until sometime after my term in this Congress ends.

__________________________________

Ross will tough to beat in the governor race in 2014. However, I do think that the Republicans will have an excellent chance to capture a fourth Congressional seat in 2012. Will there ever be another Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Arkansas? (In fact if you check out some of the information at the Red Arkansas Blog and you will see that most people view this district as a Republican pick up.)

John Brummett in his article “Ross is running, but I repeat myself,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 26, 2011 noted:

To win, a Democrat will need to be as good a politician as Ross. I can’t identify such a Democrat at present.

At this point I’d give tea party pageanteer Beth Anne Rankin, the Sarah Palin wannabe of Arkansas, a decent shot.

Jason Tolbert reported:

 
With the sudden news from Rep. Mike Ross that he will not seek re-election, potential Republican candidates will quickly emerge.  However, two Republicans have already been busy lining up support behind the scenes before Ross even announced his decision.

Republican Tom Cotton from Dardanelle confirms to the Tolbert Report this morning that he will seek the open seat and is already putting together his team.  Potential donors have confirmed that Cotton is lining up support and may already have over six figures in commitments.  In addition, Cotton has been seen meeting recently with Second District Congressman Tim Griffin who could lend support to Cotton’s campaign.

Cotton was one of the many names considering a run for Senate in 2010 against former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, but ultimately decided against it. Cotton currently works for international consulting firm, McKinsey and Company. A veteran, he also serves in the U.S. Army Reserves. Cotton lives in Yell County, which was part of the Second Congressional District represented by Congressman Griffin. It was moved to the Fourth Congressional Disctrict in the last redistricting process.

In addition, Beth Anne Rankin of Magnolia, former candidate and general election opponent of Mike Ross, has been exploring another run as well.  Rankin is a former Miss Arkansas and worked in former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s administration.  She recently appeared on his Fox News program “Huckabee” cutting her red hair for “Locks of Love” – something she does every few years.  Rankin recieved 40 percent of the vote in 2010 with Ross pulling in 57 percent.

In addition, sources close to State Rep. Lane Jean of Magnolia confirm that he is “strongly considering” getting into the race as well.  Jean was elected to his first term in the Arkansas House in 2010.

Other potential Republicans names mentioned are: State Rep. Matthew Shepherd, former Congressional candidate Glenn Gallas, and Will Rockfeller – the son of the late Lt. Gov. Win Rockfeller.

January 5, 2012 – 12:00 am Categories: Jason Tolbert, spending out of control | Post a comment

Fellow admirer of Francis Schaeffer, Michele Bachmann quits presidential race

photo

What Ever Happened to the Human Race?

Bachmann was a student of the works of Francis Schaeffer like I am and I know she was pro-life because of it. (Observe video clip above and picture of Schaeffer.) I hated to see her go.

 DES MOINES, Iowa — Last night, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann vowed to soldier on in her bid for the Republican presidential nomination. This morning, she decided to suspend her campaign.

“Last night the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice, and so I have decided to stand aside,” she told supporters and reporters in West Des Moines this morning.

According to campaign spokesman Alice Stewart, Bachmann took last night to pray and consider how she might best move forward.

“She saw that [Iowa voters] coalesced around other candidates, and she just, she didn’t have it in her heart to continue,” Stewart told reporters this morning.

Stewart also said that campaign finance was not a factor in the decision.

“Money was not an issue at all. As you saw, we had a full schedule in South Carolina. We were planning to move full speed ahead and also go to the debates in New Hampshire and events after that,” she said.

[Bachmann’s Decline: What Happened?]

In announcing her campaign’s suspension, Bachmann struck a cautionary tone about what she considers to be the Obama administration’s destructive policies, which she will continue to fight.

“I ran because I realized 2012 is our last chance and our only chance to repeal ‘Obamacare’ and Dodd-Frank, and I knew how to get rid of both of them,” she said.

For Bachmann’s supporters, the announcement was clearly a letdown. One man’s eyes welled up as Bachmann announced her decision to step aside.

“I mean, I understand it’s part of the process–kind of narrowing the field, that’s why we have the caucuses,” says Acacia Scott, a junior at the University of Northern Iowa who’s from Norwalk, Iowa, and says she backed Bachmann for the last month and a half. “But I supported her for a reason.”

[See photos of Michele Bachmann.]

Now those supporters must decide whom to back next. For Scott, it won’t be easy.

“Ultimately, yes, I’d love to get behind another presidential candidate and get Obama out of office,” she says, but adds that she has only had eyes for Bachmann during the race.

“As of right now, no, I don’t have my eye on another candidate,” Scott explained.

Ryan Rose, the Tea Party Coalition chair for the Bachmann campaign, is similarly undecided about whom else in the race he could support.

“I honestly have no clue. I think I will be reassessing and try to push the same principles I believe she has advanced,” said Rose.

[See how candidates appealed to teens in Iowa.]

Campaign spokesperson Alice Stewart told reporters this morning that Bachmann is still undecided as to which other candidate she will endorse in the race for the Republican nomination.

Still, Bachmann “doesn’t see where she made any mistakes” and is proud of her campaign, according to Stewart, who added, “She has certainly no room whatsoever for regret.”

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29)

Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]

Jay Leno’s discussion with Michele Bachmann on Tonight Show

The LA Times reported: As usual, there was nothing confrontational about Jay Leno’s interview with his political guest, in this case, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). She was on the West Coast on Friday to speak in Orange County and at the state Republican Convention in L.A. and, who knows? Maybe to schmooze some money from […]

Responding to Oppenneimer and Lizza:Defending Francis Schaeffer’s influence on believers such as Michele Bachmann(Part 10)

Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?” This is a series of posts […]

 

January 4, 2012 – 2:55 pm Categories: Uncategorized | Post a comment

Brantley agrees with Obama that the rich should pay more

The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory

Max Brantley is fond of accusing Republicans of coddling the rich and here comes Warren Buffett and validates both what President Obama and Brantley have been saying. However, will the increase in taxes have the desired result that they are wanting?

Higher Tax Rates on Rich Won’t Increase Revenues

by Alan Reynolds

Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, is the author of Income and Wealth (Greenwood Press 2006).

Added to cato.org on September 13, 2011

This article appeared on Investor’s Business Daily on September 12, 2011.

In last week’s campaign speech disguised as an address to Congress, President Obama said, “Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary — an outrage he has asked us to fix.”

Writing recently in The New York Times, the famed chairman of Berkshire Hathaway complained that his federal income tax last year was “only 17.4% of my taxable income” — less than $7 million on a taxable income of about $40 million.

Buffett claimed that, like himself, other “mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earnings,” but that is not at all common. The average income-tax rate of those earning between $1 million and $10 million was 29.5% in 2009.

Obama used Buffett’s uniquely low 17.4% tax as proof that “a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.” That is not true.

To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous.

Anyone whose income is almost entirely composed of realized capital gains or dividends would “pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earning.” Investors with modest incomes also pay a tax rate of 15% on dividends and capital gains, although that rate is scheduled to rise to 18.8% under the Obama health law (and much higher if Congress enacted the “reforms” Obama will propose next Monday).

Before 2003, when the tax on dividends was made the same as the tax on capital gains, Berkshire Hathaway was a handy tax dodge — a way to own dividend-paying stocks without paying taxes on the dividends. Buffett is famous for collecting stocks with a generous dividend yield without Berkshire itself paying any dividend.

The dividends Berkshire receives are reinvested in buying more stocks, so the holding company ends up with more assets per share which results in capital gains that would be taxable only if the shares are sold.

Warren Buffett is the second wealthiest person in America, but he reports surprisingly little taxable income for someone who owns more than $50 billion of Berkshire shares. Increasing the tax rate on salaries and interest income would barely affect him.

He pays himself a salary of just $100,000, which explains how he pays less than his employees do in payroll taxes. He dodged the estate tax by donating his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He doubtless reduces his taxable income with other donations to charity, which explains why he repeatedly refers to taxable income rather than adjusted gross income.

Mr. Buffett ends by appointing himself tax czar and declares he “would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more … (he) would suggest an additional increase in rate.”

Since he only reports $100,000 of salary, he has nothing to lose by advocating a higher tax rate on salaries. Nearly all of his income in 2010 consisted of capital gains on sales of Berkshire shares, because those shares pay no dividends. But Buffett could just as easily hang onto appreciated shares rather than selling them, or he could donate them to charity.

Raising tax rates on dividends and capital gains sounds easier than it is. Nobody with substantial wealth can be forced to realize taxable gains by selling appreciated assets. A realized gain is no more valuable than an unrealized gain. On the contrary, it is less valuable by the amount of the tax.

Nobody can be forced to hold dividend-paying stocks either. They can instead buy Berkshire Hathaway shares if the tax on dividends goes up, as Buffett understands.

Despite his personal and professional dependence on capital gains, Buffett nevertheless feigns total ignorance of who pays the capital gains tax and why. He says, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9% in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.”

Well, the Dow Jones industrial average was 831 at the end of 1977 — down from 969 at the end of 1965 — so somebody was having trouble finding investments that would still look sensible after paying a 39.9% tax.

In any case, for Buffett to focus on the act of buying stocks or property is all wrong. The capital gains tax is not a tax on buying assets. It is a tax on selling assets. If you don’t sell, there is no tax. And when the capital gains tax is high, very few people are willing to sell.

In 1977, when the capital gains tax was 39.9%, realized gains amounted to less than 1.57% of GDP. From 1987 to 1996, when the capital gains tax was 28%, realized gains rose to 2.3% of GDP. Since 28% of 2.3 is larger than 39.9% of 1.57, the lower tax rate clearly raised more tax revenue.

From 2004 to 2007, when the capital gains tax was 15%, realized gains amounted to 5.2% of GDP. Since 15% of 5.2 is larger than 28% of 2.3, the lower tax rate again raised more tax revenue. The government cannot afford to raise this tax, particularly on those most likely to pay it.

Buffett focuses on the 400 tax returns with the highest reported incomes, which are often one-time capital gains from the sale of a business or real estate.

“In 1992,” he writes, “the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2% on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5%.”

In 1992 only 39% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because those tax rates were so high. With most reported income coming from salaries, the average tax rate was high.

Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, is the author of Income and Wealth (Greenwood Press 2006).

 

More by Alan Reynolds

By 2008, 67% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because both were taxed at 15%. That diluted the average tax rate, yet nevertheless resulted in much more taxes paid because the amount of reported income was so much larger.

The big change was not in actual income, but merely in what the IRS counts as income. People were hiding more of their wealth in 1992 than they did in 2006-2008, and they were hiding even more in 1977.

It is easy to advocate a higher tax rate on capital gains, but it is even easier to avoid paying that higher tax rate. Simply hold onto assets that went up and sell those that went down, and never realize gains until you have offsetting losses.

The evidence is undeniable that affluent investors and property owners report far fewer gains whenever the capital gains tax goes up. Choosing to pay tax on capital gains and dividends is usually voluntary, and when the rate gets too high we run short of volunteers.

With the super-high 1977 tax rates of 39.9% on capital gains and 70% on dividends and salaries, federal revenues were 18% of GDP. In 1992, revenues were only 17.5% of GDP. In 2007, thanks in large part to a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, revenues were 18.5% of GDP.

To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous. It didn’t work then, and it wouldn’t work now.

The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring

Uploaded by on May 28, 2008

A video by CF&P Foundation that builds on the discussion of theory in Part I and evidence in Part II, this concluding video in the series on the Laffer Curve explains how the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue-estimating process is based on the absurd theory that changes in tax policy – even dramatic reforms such as a flat tax – do not effect economic growth. In other words, the current system assumes the Laffer Curve does not exist. Because of congressional budget rules, this leads to a bias for tax increases and against tax cuts. The video explains that “static scoring” should be replaced with “dynamic scoring” so that lawmakers will have more accurate information when making decisions about tax policy. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org.

January 4, 2012 – 2:09 pm Categories: President Obama, Taxes | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |