Warren Buffett does not endorse Obama’s plan

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan

Published on Sep 9, 2011 by

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

__________________

Is Buffett getting misquoted by the Obama administration?

Did Warren Buffett really disagree with Obama’s tax plan?

(Scott Eeels/Bloomberg)

 

September 30, 2011|By James Oliphant
Republicans are getting a great deal of mileage out of an interview investor Warren Buffett gave Friday morning, contending that the billionaire failed to endorse President Obama’s jobs plan or the proposed tax hike that bears his name.The Republican National Committee, for example, e-blasted a mailer that claimed Buffett had disagreed in a CNBC interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin with Obama’s plan to raise taxes on America’s top earners.

 

But did Buffett actually say that? More than anything, while interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, he took a pass on commenting on Obama’s plan at all. As they used to say in the 20th century, let’s go to the videotape:

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “Let’s talk about the Buffett Rule for a moment. Talk to me about how it came about in terms of the White House getting in touch with you and you putting your name to this?”

Warren Buffett:  “Well, [National Economic Council Director] Gene Sperling called and said, ’Can we use your name?’ And I said, yes.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy you said yes?”

Buffett: “Sure, I mean I wrote about it.”

Sorkin: “Are you happy with the way it’s been described? Is the program that the White House has presented — a million dollars and over — your program?”

Buffett: “Well, the precise program, I don’t know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low — not just high incomes. Some guy making $50 million playing baseball, his taxes won’t change. If you make 50 million dollars a year appearing on television, his income won’t change, but if they make a lot of money and they pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what the other people pay .”

Sorkin: “Does that mean you disagree with the president’s new jobs proposal, which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000?”

Buffett: “That’s another program that I won’t be discussing, but my program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are paying very low tax rates. Not just all the rich people. It probably would apply to 50,000 people in a population of 310 million.”

Sorkin: “That means you disagree with the president on the 250,000?”

Buffett: “No, no, you may disagree –“

Sorkin: “I’m asking, you agree that 250,000 is the right number?”

Buffett: “I will look at the overall plan that gets submitted to Congress, which they are voting on, and decide, net, do I like it or do I not like it? There’s no question there will be parts I’ll disagree with.”  (Watch the video of the interview at the end of this article.)

Part of the confusion stems from Obama’s use of Buffett’s name in recent speeches as promoting the idea the rich “pay their fair share.”  The Buffett Rule, as Buffett described in the interview and as he has proposed elsewhere, would affect a small percentage (less than 1) of America’s wealthiest citizens and would elevate the rate they pay on capital gains to be comparable to middle-class tax rates.

Essentially, the proposal was boiled down to a metaphor that has billionaires such as Buffett paying taxes at a lower rate than their “secretaries.”

When Obama rolled out his version of the rule, it was described as a tax on millionaires, but in truth, it wouldn’t affect most people who earn more than $1 million a year unless they derived most of their income from investments.

Along with that proposal, Obama has advocated letting the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire for families making more than $250,000 a year—something which has nothing to do with Warren Buffett or the “Buffett Rule.”

Here’s what Buffett told the Fox Business Network Friday:

“I didn’t say the wealthy should pay more. I said the ultra-wealthy who are paying very low tax rates should pay more and the figures show that the 400 top tax payers who earned an average of almost $230 million apiece were paying 21% in a combined payroll tax and income tax, which is well below what all the people in my office pay now. What I’m talking about would not apply to someone that made $5 million a year as a baseball player or $10 million a year on media. It would apply only to probably 50,000 people out of 309 million who have huge incomes pay very low taxes. If you have a country with a deficit of over a trillion dollars and you think it can be solved by voluntary tax payments then you believe in the tooth fairy. There should be a policy that applies to people with money who earn lots of money and pay very low rates. If they earn it by normal jobs what I say would not hit them at all.”

Related posts: 

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay?

Do the rich avoid the taxes that we all pay? Do the Rich Avoid Taxes? Posted by David Boaz President Obama says the rich should pay higher tax rates, citing billionaire Warren Buffett, who says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Various analysts have pointed out that Buffett takes very little salary […]

President Obama’s plan and the Heritage Foundation response

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan Published on Sep 9, 2011 by Bloomberg Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg) […]

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax Dan Mitchell does it again. He is always right on the mark. CPAs Celebrate as Obama Proposes to Create a Turbo-Charged Alternative Minimum Tax Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Wow, this is remarkable. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is one of the most-hated features of the tax code. It […]

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich”

Brantley, Buffett and Obama: “Stop coddling the rich” 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 […]

Buffett wants the rich soaked but that will not solve our problem in the budget

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted: Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for […]

Brummett touts Buffett’s math, but it is wrong

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich Max Brantley this morning on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

October 4, 2011 – 7:39 am Categories: President Obama, Taxes | Post a comment

Tagged , , , |

Auburn’s Pat Dye at Little Rock Touchdown Club on Oct 3, 2011

We have had some great speakers at the Little Rock Touchdown Club and Auburn’s Pat Dye has to be included in that list.

10/3/2011 at 3:22pm

The last time former Auburn head football coach Pat Dye addressed the Little Rock Touchdown Club, he spoke about a wonderful meeting he’d had with Alabama native and author Harper Lee (“To Kill a Mockingbird”). Monday, Miss Lee would have been blushing at some of the saltiness in Dye’s entertaining luncheon speech, marking his third visit to the club in its eight-year history.

You can hear the full-on version at the Touchdown Club’s website. Maybe the comment about Paul Finebaum, when Dye wasn’t miked or at the dais, made the video. We’ll just touch on the key points he made about No. 15 Auburn’s game coming up Saturday with now No. 10 Arkansas.

Dye believes Arkansas has a good team. Or an outstanding one. Take your pick, because he said both, just like a coach would in speaking about an upcoming opponent. He definitely believes Arkansas has a great offense led by the genius of head coach Bobby Petrino, and it’s complemented by a good defense and kicking game.

He warns that Auburn has a great kicking game, which the Tiger program has been noted for at least since the glory days of Shug Jordan. As for Auburn’s offense and defense, well, Dye can’t give either one good marks. But somehow the Tigers are 4-1 and 2-0 in the SEC West in what was supposed to be a rebuilding year under Coach Gene Chizik.

Dye said last year’s Auburn excelled because of two players: quarterback Cam Newton was “Superman” on offense and tackle Nick Fairley was an unblockable force on defense. Fairley and Newton took Auburn from being just an average team to the 14-0 BCS national champion.

Newton and Fairley now are playing in the NFL.

Auburn is getting contributions from a number of players this year, including Arkansans Michael Dyer, a sophomore running back from Little Rock Christian, and Kiehl Frazier, a freshman quarterback from Shiloh Christian, contributing.

“Dyer carried it 41 times against South Carolina, and Auburn doesn’t beat South Carolina without the plays Kiehl Frazier made on third down near midfield,” Dye said.

Senior Barrett Trotter is the regular Auburn quarterback, but Frazier in spare doses is giving offensive coordinator Gus Malzahn (another Arkansas native) more of the type of signal caller he needs to run the Tigers’ offense — a good runner who can pass. Frazier’s runs helped Auburn keep key moving in the Tigers’ 16-13 upset at Columbia on Saturday.

Dye said he hopes Auburn can give Arkansas a competitive game “so you fans won’t leave early and go to your parties.”

Dye looked over the list of this fall’s previous Touchdown Club speakers — specifically noting former Alabama coach Gene Stallings. He said coaches like Stallings like to talk about the time they played and coached as being college football’s grand ol’ days, but disagreed with the assessment.

“Coach Stallings likes to live in the dark ages,” Dye said laughing. “We’re living in the golden age right now … There’s never been as much interest in college football across the United States as there is today.”

Dye says he’s on a panel with Stallings and former coaches who vote in the weekly Legends Poll. Dye said he’s told Stallings he couldn’t coach defense today like he did 15 years ago.

“All you had to defend was the I formation,” Dye said he told Stallings. “Now, there are a jillion formations.”

“He said, ‘They’re not teaching ’em how to tackle.’ I said, ‘Hell, they’re just tyring to teach them where to line up.'”

And that’s what Auburn’s Ghizik and defensive coordinator Ted Roof are dealing with down on The Plains with a young defense loaded with top prep prospects who are learning their way. Soon enough, they’ll be very good. But don’t read much into Saturday’s win at South Carolina. Dye said an Auburn fan was excitedly pointed to the play of the defense against South Carolina, but Dye interjected, “That wasn’t much of an offense they were playing.”

The whole sentence was spicier than that, but we’ll let you hear for yourself on the video.

“We don’t have a junior in our front four,” Dye said. “They’re playing with a lot of energy, but they’re just a bunch of guys who are wet behind the ears.”

Dye, who left coaching after the 1992 season, was pushed away somewhat from his continued involvement with Auburn’s program by former Tigers coach Tommy Tuberville, the Camden native who left the Tigers’ job after a 5-7 season in 2008 and is now at Texas Tech. Since Chizik’s arrival, he’s been a fixture again around Auburn football.

Late in a troubled 2003 season at Auburn, the then-school president and then-athletic director took a clandestine trip to Louisville to entice Bobby Petrino, who had been Auburn’s offensive coordinator in 2002, to replace Tuberville. Had news of that jet trip not leaked, history on The Plains (and Fayetteville too, for that matter) might have changed. Word did lead, though, right before Tuberville’s Tigers beat Alabama, and then Auburn went 13-0 the next year and finished the bowl season No. 2 behind Southern Cal.

Monday, it appeared Dye is a big fan of Petrino’s.

“He came from a great football family. All of his life, since he was wearing diapers, he’s been around football. There is none better than Bobby Petrino as far as an offensive football mind,” Dye said to reporters after the luncheon.

But, with Arkansas surrendering 628 yards last Saturday in Petrino’s fourth year at Fayetteville, can Petrino match the defensive side of the ball with his offensive acumen, I asked Dye.

“If he can recruit the kind of players they are getting at LSU and Alabama, and Florida, yes,” he said.

Remember what Dye said earlier about defending “a jillion” formations and just getting players to line up right.

During his luncheon, he gave a ringing endorsement of football in the South that would have you convinced the recruitable players are available for many teams beyond LSU, Alabama and Florida, and it’s why the SEC has won the last five national championships.

But, if anybody from outside the SEC can win the BCS Championship Game this year, it could be the Big Ten’s Wisconsin, Dye said.

He rattled off the pluses for the Badgers, including a line that averages 6-foot-5 and 320 pounds, two outstanding receivers and three good running backs. “And, you know what they have that Alabama and LSU don’t,” he asked the large crowd at the Embassy Suites ball room.

“That have a great quarterback.” His name is Russell Wilson, and he started out at N.C. State before having to quit there because N.C. State wouldn’t let him also play professional baseball.

“And, you know, he almost came to Auburn,” Dye added.

The Tigers’ program got lucky beyond dreams last year, bringing in a rare one-and-done from junior college, Dye admitted. “It will be 20 or 30 years before another comes around like Cam Newton,” the College Football Hall of Famer said.

Then, Dye stood for a picture with Camden Fairview wide receiver Dominique Reed, honored Monday as the club’s high school player of the week for his five-catch, 290-yard effort two weeks ago against Hot Springs Lakeside.

Dye, who had a great playing career at Georgia before going into coaching and becoming the man who signed Bo Jackson — calling him the best athlete ever — looked up at the 6-foot-3 Reed and said, “I always liked to sign players who were a lot taller than me.”

Email: jharris@abpg.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @jimharris360

October 4, 2011 – 7:29 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Entitlements Will Consume All Tax Revenues by 2049

Entitlements Will Consume All Tax Revenues by 2049

Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.

If the average historical level of tax revenue is extended, spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidy program, and Social Security will consume all revenues by 2049. Becauseentitlement spending is funded on autopilot, no revenue will be left to pay for other government spending, including constitutional functions such as defense.

PERCENTAGE OF GDP

Download

Entitlements Will Consume All Tax Revenues by 2049

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Chart 30 of 42

In Depth

  • Policy Papers for Researchers

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

October 4, 2011 – 3:09 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

How much does our country really owe?

How much does our country really owe?

Rob Bluey

June 25, 2011 at 1:04 pm

Earlier this month USA Today splashed a headline on its front page that declared: “U.S. owes $62 trillion.” I wrote a couple blog posts about it — one on the alarming size of the number and another on its juxtaposition with the Anthony Weiner story.

It turns out this number — a staggering debt of $534,000 per household — has caused quite the controversy. James Agresti, president of Just Facts, wrote to me about an editorial from Bloomberg taking USA Today to task for making a miscalculation. That came as a shocker to me. USA Today wasn’t the first to project a number that size. And my colleague Bill Beach and I used that very data point during a presentation last week in Raleigh, NC.

Were we wrong?

Bloomberg’s editorial board thinks it’s absurd for USA Today to draw the conclusion:

Trillions have now joined billions as amounts that are part of everyday conversation, but impossible to make meaningful. News that you thought your country owed $14.3 trillion but it actually owe $62 trillion has less impact than pulling a $20 out of your wallet and discovering that it’s only a $10. The notion that you yourself personally owe half a million dollars is simply unreal — it can’t be processed.

I’d agree the number is hard to process. In fact, I was just asking for better ways to explain the size of one trillion.

But as for the number itself, Agresti, whose nonprofit institute is dedicated to researching and publishing verifiable facts on public policy issues, isn’t buying Bloomberg’s argument. He rebuts three main points for American Thinker:

The first “obvious flaw” in such calculations, the Bloomberg editors tell us, is that “if a government retiree is entitled to a pension of, say, $35,000 a year, that is both a cost to the government and a benefit to that retiree. But only the cost is taken into account.”

Not true. The entire cost of the pension is not taken into account, only the gap between the employee’s pension contributions (money or service) and what the federal government has promised the employee in return. Big difference.

Assume for the sake of argument that Bloomberg offers its employees defined-benefit pensions (like the federal government), and imagine that Bloomberg told its editorial board that they would each have to cough up an extra $481,000 in pension contributions above and beyond their current commitments in order to receive the same pensions they were originally promised. Are we to believe that the editors would slough it off by saying, “It’s not a problem because the money will be used to pay for our benefits”?

Second, the Bloomberg editors claim that such calculations do not account for the fact that a dollar owed in the future is less of a burden than a dollar owed today.

Wrong again. Our calculations and those of USA Today and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation use net present values that account for the time value of money. To quote the U.S Treasury report from which we obtained most of the data used in our calculations, “The [social insurance] estimates are actuarial present values … Present values recognize that a dollar paid or collected in the future is worth less than a dollar today, because a dollar today could be invested and earn interest. To calculate a present value, future amounts are thus reduced using an assumed interest rate….”

It bears noting that the figures used by Just Facts are “closed group present values,” which are calculated in a manner that approximates how publicly traded companies are required to calculate their debts and obligations. In other words, we are using accounting principles that the federal government demands from publicly held corporations.

Third, the Bloomberg editorialists tell us that such calculations are plagued by “false precision” because they “require peering decades into the future.”

Forgive the obvious point, but private pension funds and insurance companies have been performing such calculations for many decades with generally acceptable results. Moreover, are we supposed to ignore the government’s liabilities and unfunded obligations because we cannot specify them with absolute precision? Imagine a corporate executive trying to make that argument to the SEC.

October 4, 2011 – 12:23 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

“Tip Tuesday” Advice to Gene Simmons (Part 13)

Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed

Gene, 61, and Shannon, 54, have been together for 27 years and have two children, Nicholas, 22, and Sophie, 19.

The ‘Rock and Roll All Nite’ hitmaker has previously made his views on marriage very clear, saying in 2007: “The problem with marriage is somebody else has a right to say how you lead your life. Not even your mother has that right, and she gave you life itself. Why would you ever give anybody else that right?”

___________________________________

Gene Simmons really does not understand what marriage is all about. Take a look at what God intended for marriage:

Reclaiming the Heart of Marriage

God calls us to a renewed life, but it still takes patience, sacrifice, discipline and compassion.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…”

These words are as familiar to us as “Once upon a time …”— and, unfortunately, sometimes as insignificant. Many—including some Christians—consider the Bible’s creation to be a children’s story or a fairy tale. We rush past the foundation and go straight to the punch line—the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, the beginning of human history holds far more significance for our lives today than many realize.

Jesus thought it important. When grilled about the relations between husbands and wives—specifically divorce—Christ subverted the petty selfishness and encrusted legalism that had sprung up around marriage by returning to this ancient truth:

“Haven’t you read … that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together let man not separate” (Matthew 19:4-6, NIV).

But Jesus’ questioners persisted:

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” (Matthew 19:7, NIV)

His reply illuminates that old creation story with a power and life. He said:

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way in the beginning” (Matthew 19:8, NIV)

Jesus wasn’t making a casual statement about the fallen world. He was directing us to meditate on God’s design for humanity in the beginning—the design that was twisted and shattered when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden.

God said:

Let us make man in our image, in our likeness …

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

Male and female he created them (Genesis 1:26,27, NIV)

How often have husbands and wives considered the truth that each bears the image and likeness of God? More important, how many realize they reflect God’s image and likeness at least as much, if not more in their one-flesh union than each does separately?

By pointing us back to the beginning, Jesus wanted us to understand this vital revelation: God created humans for intimate unions that model the intimate union shared by members of the Triune God. He said, “Let US make man in OUR image and likeness.” God’s great gift to His children was the ability to share in the divine love existing before time.

Perhaps this is not the character of your marriage. Your one-flesh union may have been ravaged by infidelity, pornography use, illness, bitterness, selfishness, neglect, or abuse. You may love your spouse but also feel, at times, like strangling him. Separation may seem like the only available option. Or, maybe the kids are gone and you find an empty marriage to match your empty house.

Life is hard. Some have called it a “vale of tears.” When Adam and Eve sinned, they endured “painful toil” working the cursed ground of “thorns and thistles” (Genesis 3:17-19, NIV). Our hearts have also suffered the devastation of the Fall. We daily battle the thorns and thistles—pride, bitterness, lust, greed, envy—that threaten to choke our fragile stirrings of love.

This makes marriage difficult. We often see our spouse as the enemy, rather than an extension of ourselves. Our one-flesh union may be lacking all emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects and be relegated to quick couplings born of frustration or desperation. And we wonder where God is in all of this.

After directing us back to the beginning, Jesus provided a way for us to return to God’s design for our lives and marriages. He finished His atonement for our sins on the cross and promised a new life in Him. The Bible teaches that if we have been baptized into His death, we are also baptized into His new life (Romans 6:3-4, NIV). This is our hope and His promise. The life God gives is one restored, redeemed, and transformed.

This is not some hyper-spiritualized pipe dream. God calls us to a renewed life, but it still takes patience, sacrifice, discipline, and compassion. But God is with us every step of the way, working through His Spirit to restore everything that has been damaged. Listen for God’s call to this transformed life and hold tight to the promise of the One who said, “Behold, I am making all things new.”

Copyright © 2006, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

Shannon Tweed

October 4, 2011 – 12:06 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

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 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 bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

August 1, 2011 | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Rachel Semmel | 202-226-2298

Washington, D.C. – Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) made the following statement after he voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011:

“While this deal was well-intended and skillfully negotiated, I cannot in good faith vote for a bill I know does not do enough to bend the curve of our rapidly escalating debt.“When looking solely at the numbers, the amount of cuts in the 2012 and 2013 budget cycles are not nearly enough, and these are the only two cycles under the control of this Congress. I remain concerned about holding future Congresses accountable to cap spending at our requested levels.

“Though I feel this measure is inadequate, I am proud of House Republicans for shifting the conversation from spending and borrowing to reducing the size and cost of government.  It is a positive sign, and slowly but surely Washington is waking up to how massive our debt really is.

“I was sent here to grow the economy, stand up to the president’s tax-and-borrow bailouts, and stop the avalanche of debt. However, we simply must do more.”

October 4, 2011 – 12:01 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Jenna Fischer’s baby is here

A pregnant Jenna Fischer arrives at the premiere “A Little Help” at Sony Pictures …

I feel like I know Jenna. Actually I have known her uncle Jim for years. He used to live in Memphis and we actually knew it other because we attended the same hardware conventions every year. My booth  has been near his booth for about a dozen shows in a row. Many times we have been talking and I have heard lots of stories through the years that his sister tells him about Jenna.

‘Office’ Star Jenna Fischer Gives Birth To Baby Boy!

Access HollywoodAccess Hollywood – 6 hrs ago

It’s double diaper duty for “The Office” star Jenna Fischer!

Jenna, who plays new mom Pam on the NBC sitcom, has welcomed her first child, a rep for the actress confirmed to Access Hollywood .

PLAY IT NOW: Dish Of Salt: Jenna Fischer Wants More Girl Power In ‘The Office’

Jenna and husband Lee Kirk are proud parents to son Weston Lee, who was born on September 24.

“Mom and baby are doing great,” the rep noted.

VIEW THE PHOTOS: ‘Office’ Darling Jenna Fischer

“The Office” writers incorporated Jenna’s real-life pregnancy into the show this season, as Pam is currently pregnant with her second child with Dunder Mifflin husband Jim (John Krasinski).

Jenna first announced her pregnancy back in May and in July, she confirmed the couple was expecting a boy during a visit to “The Tonight Show.”

It appears her role on “The Office” ignited a bit of baby fever for Jenna, who said working with a pair of twin babies, who play her & Jim’s daughter Cece on the show, warmed her heart.

VIEW THE PHOTOS: Celebrity Baby Bumps

“They got the cutest [babies] in town to play our baby,” Jenna told The LA Times’ Brand X blog in September 2010. “Pretty much any time we get to see baby Cece is great.”

Copyright 2011 by NBC Universal, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

October 3, 2011 – 7:56 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , |

Does living together work? Rogen and Miller finally tie knot

Does living together work? Finally Rogen and Miller tied the knot.

Seth Rogen and Lauren Miller attend the premiere of "50/50" at the Ziegfeld Theater on Sept. 26, 2011 in New York City. 
Seth Rogen and Lauren Miller attend the premiere of “50/50” at the Ziegfeld Theater on Sept. 26, 2011 in New York City.Theo Wargo/GETTY IMAGES
Bang Showbiz
 

Seth Rogen and Lauren Miller have married in California.

The couple — who started dating in 2004 — tied the knot in a Jewish ceremony officiated by a female rabbi at Kunde Estate in Sonoma in front of friends including Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd, The Office’s Craig Robinson, Knocked Up director Judd Apatow and his wife Leslie Mann.

Speaking about the three-day celebration, a source told Us Weekly magazine: “The wedding was more laughs than anything else. Every other line was a joke and the crowd couldn’t contain their laughter. It was non-stop fun!”

Rogen has previously revealed he had no idea what to expect from the ceremony as he had left all of the planning up to Miller because she has always wanted to get married.

He said: “I’m around for it. My girlfriend has a very vested interest. I think she’s been planning this for years. I’m the last piece of the puzzle. I’m excited. It’s going to be lovely.”

While the wedding was a romantic affair the proposal wasn’t as Rogen, 29, was so nervous after he bought the engagement ring he popped the question almost immediately after buying it, while Miller was still getting dressed.

_______________

Cohabitation is just like marriage, but without “the piece of paper.” Cohabitation typically doesn’t bring the benefits (in physical health, wealth, and emotional well being) that marriage does. In terms of these benefits cohabitants in the United States more closely resemble singles than married couples. This is due, in part, to the fact that cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples, and they’re more oriented toward their own personal autonomy and less to the well being of their partner. (From: Smartmarriages® Subject: TOP 10 MYTHS OF MARRIAGE- Popenoe/Piece of Paper schedule – 2/13/02)

• Living together without the benefit of marriage can be harmful for the children since the relationship is not a committed one and therefore lacks stability and is more prone to break-up. For the children of such unions when the couple breaks up there may as well be a divorce. The lack of official papers does nothing to make a split easier on the kids. (Rabbi Shea Hecht, Pondering the Divorce Rate, Gopusa.com, 5/17/07)

Weekend To Remember Conference Testimony

Here’s a couple who went to a FamilyLife Conference and how it made a difference in their marriage 

Related posts:

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 62)

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Charles, Prince of Wales leave Clarence House to travel to Buckingham Palace for the evening celebrations. (John Stillwell/WPA Pool/Getty Images) I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 61)

Britain’s Prince William, center left, and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, center right, pose for a photograph with, clockwise from bottom right, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Eliza Lopes, Grace van Cutsem, Lady Louise Windsor, Tom Pettifer, and William Lowther-Pinkerton in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace, following their wedding at Westminster Abbey, London, on Friday, April […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 60)

Michael Middleton lifts Catherine’s veil Michael Middleton lifts Catherine’s bridal veil at the altar of Westminster [2011] The Royal Wedding – MARRIAGE part 1 The Archbishop: “I pronounce that they be man and wife together, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” . They’re now man and […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 59)

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge walk hand in hand from Buckingham Palace in London Saturday April 30 2011, the day after their wedding. (John Stillwell/AP Photo) Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 58)

The Official Royal Wedding photographs The Royal Wedding Group in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace on 29th April 2011 with the Bride and Groom, TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in the centre. Prince William and Kate Middleton’s Love Story In this video clip mentions that Kate and William lived together in college. […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 57)

The Official Royal Wedding photographs The Royal Wedding at Buckingham Palace on 29th April 2011: The Bride and Groom, TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in the Throne Room. Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would […]

Fathers Day 2011

For almost three months I have been thinking a lot about the issue of fatherhood and marriage.  I have started two new series which have been very popular. The first series deals with Kate Middleton and Prince William and the second series has been concerning Arnold and Maria. I will post some links to past […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

 

October 3, 2011 – 1:22 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Spending has always been the problem

Spending has always been the problem.

The Problem Is Spending, not Deficits

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Reckless spending increases under both Bush and Obama have resulted in unprecedented deficits. Congress will soon be forced to increase the nation’s debt limit by an astounding $1.8 trillion. Government borrowing has become such a big issue that some politicians are proposing a deficit reduction commission, which may mean they are like alcoholics trying for a self-imposed intervention.

But all this fretting about deficits and debt is misplaced. Government borrowing is a bad thing, of course, but this video explains that the real problem is excessive government spending.

Fixating on the deficit allows politicians to pull a bait and switch, since they can raise taxes, claim they are solving the problem, when all they are doing is replacing debt-financed spending with tax-financed spending. At best, that’s merely taking a different route to the wrong destination. The more likely result is that the tax increases will weaken the economy, further exacerbating America’s fiscal position.

October 3, 2011 – 10:59 am Categories: Cato Institute, spending out of control | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 6)

Further Reforms to Modernize Social Security — Saving the American Dream

Uploaded by on May 24, 2011

http://www.savingthedream.org | Currently deep in debt, America’s Social Security program doesn’t look very secure. Today there is a new plan to get it back on track. David John, Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security at The Heritage Foundation, identifies how we must reform Social Security to ensure it continues to protect America’s seniors.

Uploaded by on Jan 8, 2009

Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security

______________________________

Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue.

Social Security Deficits Soon Will Be Permanent

by Michael D. Tanner

This article appeared in The Orange County Register on August 13, 2010.

When last we heard from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he was proclaiming that there was no need to reform Social Security because the program “is on solid ground for decades to come.”

Well, apparently that’s true — if by “decades” Reid, D-Nev., meant “five years.”

Social Security’s trustees this month finally released their long-delayed report on the system’s finances. According to the trustees, who include President Barack Obama’s secretaries of Labor and Treasury, Social Security is actually running a cash-flow deficit today, spending more money on benefits than it takes in through taxes. Most of that deficit has been caused by the recent economic downturn and, hopefully, will be only temporary.

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute expert on entitlement programs.

More by Michael D. Tanner

But regardless of how the economy performs in the next few years, the trustees warn that by 2015, just five years from now, Social Security will again start to run deficits — and this time they will be permanent. That’s a year sooner than predicted in last year’s report.

While, in theory, the Social Security Trust Fund will be able to pay benefits until 2037, the same as in last year’s report, that figure is misleading because the trust fund contains no actual assets. The government bonds it holds are simply a form of IOU, a measure of how much money the government owes the system, $2.6 trillion, according to the report.

Of course, no one is saying that the government will default on its obligations, but one might ask where the government will get the money to pay back that $2.6 trillion. It’s not as though the government has it laying around. To say that Social Security is fine because the Treasury will find a way to pay its debts is like saying you have plenty of money for your mortgage — as long as you don’t eat.

Even if Congress can find a way to redeem the bonds, the trust fund surplus will be completely exhausted by 2037. At that point, Social Security will have to rely solely on revenue from the payroll tax — and that won’t be sufficient to pay all promised benefits. Overall, the amount the system has promised beyond what it can actually pay now totals $18.7 trillion.

Not surprisingly, Reid and others have suggested that all of this could be fixed with a simple tax increase. They have suggested, for instance, taking the cap off the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. This would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history, and would give this country a higher marginal tax rate than, say, Sweden. And it wouldn’t come close to fixing Social security’s financial shortfall.

In fact, even if you took the cap off completely, without giving anyone additional benefits in exchange for the higher taxes, you would extend the date at which Social Security begins to run a deficit by seven years — to 2022. That’s not much gain for all that pain.

To actually “save” Social Security would require a 50 percent hike in the payroll tax, from 12.4 percent to at least 18 percent, or the equivalent in other taxes. That’s a big tax hike.

And all this says nothing about Social Security’s other problems. Social Security taxes are already so high, relative to benefits, that Social Security has simply become a bad deal for younger workers, providing a low, below-market rate of return. Many young workers will end up paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. They will actually lose money under the program.

And, most importantly, under the current system, workers do not actually own their Social Security benefits. They are left totally dependent on the goodwill of the 535 politicians in Congress to determine what they’ll receive in retirement. Benefits are not inheritable, and the program is a barrier to wealth accumulation.

Politicians like Reid can no longer be allowed to duck this vital issue. The trustees’ report makes it clear that Social Security is not “on solid ground.” Social Security must be reformed, sooner rather than later.

October 3, 2011 – 10:37 am Categories: Social Security | Post a comment