David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 3)

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 3)

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 3 of 5

Uploaded by  on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

David Barton did a great job with this article America’s Religious Heritage As Demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations :

David Barton – 01/2009
America’s Religious Heritage
As Demonstrated in Presidential InaugurationsReligious activities at presidential inaugurations have become the target of criticism in recent years, 1 with legal challenges being filed to halt activities as simple as inaugural prayers and the use of “so help me God” in the presidential oath. 2 These critics – evidently based on a deficient education – wrongly believe that the official governmental arena is to be aggressively secular and religion-free. The history of inaugurations provides some of the most authoritative proof of the fallacy of these modern arguments.

Subsequent presidents made similar acknowledgments:

HERBERT HOOVER: This occasion is not alone the administration of the most sacred oath which can be assumed by an American citizen. It is a dedication and consecration under God to the highest office in service of our people. 15

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of office in the presence of my fellow countrymen – in the presence of our God . . . 16

JOHN F. KENNEDY: For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago. 17

RICHARD NIXON: I have taken an oath today in the presence of God and my countrymen to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. 18

There were others as well. 19 The taking of the presidential oath is a religious action – or what Founding Father John Witherspoon had called “an act of worship.” 20

Returning to Washington’s inauguration, following the taking of the oath on the Bible, Washington and the officials then departed the balcony and went inside Federal Hall to the Senate Chamber where Washington delivered his Inaugural Address. From the outset of that first-ever presidential address, Washington – as his first very official act – set a religious tone by expressing his own heartfelt prayer to God:

Such being the impressions under which I have – in obedience to the public summons – repaired to [arrived at] the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being Who rules over the universe, Who presides in the councils of nations, and Whose providential aids can supply every human defect – that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes. 21

The remainder of Washington’s address was no less strongly religious; he even called on his listeners to remember and acknowledge God:

In tendering this homage [act of worship] to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential Agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government [i.e., the creation and adoption of the Constitution] . . . cannot be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude. . . .

These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. . . . [T]he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality . . . since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness – between duty and advantage – between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. . . .

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that . . . His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this government must depend. 22

Washington and the Members of Congress then marched in a procession to St. Paul’s Church for Divine Service. That Congress should have gone to church en masse as part of the inauguration was no surprise, for Congress had itself scheduled these inaugural services.

That is, while the new Constitution had established the presidency, it stipulated nothing specific about the inaugural activities. It was therefore within the authority of Congress to help direct those activities. The Senate therefore acted:

Resolved, That after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he – attended by the Vice-President and members of the Senate and House of Representatives – proceed to St. Paul’s Chapel to hear Divine service. 23

The House quickly approved the same resolution. 24 Once the presidential oath had been administered and the inaugural address delivered, according to official congressional records:

The President, the Vice-President, the Senate, and House of Representatives, &c., then proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine Service was performed by the chaplain of Congress. 25

The service at St. Paul’s was conducted by The Right Reverend Samuel Provoost – the Episcopal Bishop of New York, who had been chosen chaplain of the Senate the week preceding the inauguration. The service was performed according to The Book of Common Prayer, and included a number of prayers taken from Psalms 144-150 as well as Scripture readings and lessons from the book of Acts, I Kings, and the Third Epistle of John. 26

– – – ◊ ◊ ◊ – – –

The very first inauguration – conducted under the watchful eye of those who had framed our government and written its Constitution – incorporated numerous religious activities and expressions. That first inauguration set the constitutional precedent for all other inaugurations; and the activities from that original inauguration that have been repeated in whole or part in every subsequent inauguration include: (1) the use of the Bible to administer the oath; (2) the religious nature of the oath and including “So help me God”; (3) inaugural prayers by the president; (4) religious content in the inaugural addresses; (5) the president calling the people to pray or acknowledge God; (6) inaugural worship services; and (7) clergy-led inaugural prayers.

Endnotes

15. Public Papers of the Presidents, Herbert Hoover, 1929, p.1, March 4th, 1929. See also Herbert Hoover, “Inaugural Address,” The American Presidency Project, March 4, 1929 (at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21804).(Return)

16. < i>Public Papers of the Presidents, F. D. Roosevelt, 1944, Item 7, January 20th, 1945. See also Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Inaugural Address,” The American Presidency Project, January 20, 1945 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=1660). (Return)

17. Public Papers of the Presidents, J. F. Kennedy, 1961, p.1, January 20th, 1961. See also John F. Kennedy, “Inaugural Address,” The American Presidency Project, January 20, 1961 (at:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8032). (Return)

18. Public Papers of the Presidents, Nixon, 1969, p.3-4, January 20th, 1969.See also Richard Nixon, “Inaugural Address,” The American Presidency Project, January 20, 1969 (at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=1941).(Return)

19. See, for example, Warren G. Harding, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1921; and Public Papers of the Presidents, Jimmy Carter, 1977, p.1, January 20th, 1977. See also Warren G. Harding, “Inaugural Address,” The American Presidency Project, March 4, 1921 (at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25833); Jimmy Carter, “Inaugural Address,” The American Presidency Project, January 20, 1977 (at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=6575). (Return)

20. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, p. 139, from his “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture 16 on Oaths and Vows. (Return)

21. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Joseph Gales, editor (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, p. 27. See alsoGeorge Washington, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, James D. Richardson, editor (Washington, D.C.: 1899), Vol. 1, pp. 44-45, April 30, 1789. (Return)

22. Debates and Proceedings (1834) Vol. I, pp. 27-29, April 30, 1789. (Return)

23. Debates and Proceedings (1834), Vol. I, p. 25, April 27, 1789. (Return)

24. Debates and Proceedings (1834), Vol. I, p. 241, April 29, 1789. (Return)

25. Debates and Proceedings (1834) Vol. I, p. 29, April 30, 1789. (Return)

26. Book of Common Prayer (Oxford: W. Jackson & A. Hamilton, 1784), s.v., April 30th. (Return)
September 20, 2011 – 6:35 am Categories: David Barton, Founding Fathers | Post a comment

Tagged , , , |

A better idea than the Obama job bill

A better idea than the Obama job bill

A lot better idea than President Obama’s job bill is below:

Morning Bell: The Tale of Two Jobs Plans

Mike Brownfield

September 15, 2011 at 9:51 am

It’s been one week since President Barack Obama announced his latest “stimulus” plan, and despite a cross-country road show aimed at selling his proposals to the American people, the commander in chief is finding that his message of more taxes and spending isn’t hitting home. Meanwhile, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has outlined a markedly different way to help the U.S. economy get back on track.

According to a new National Journal/United Technologies poll, only one in six Americans think that the President’s plan will decrease unemployment “a lot,” while one-quarter doubted that the plan would affect unemployment at all. Then there are the 39 percent who think that the President’s policies have made unemployment even worse (twice as many as those who say he’s made unemployment better). Now The New York Times is raining on the President’s parade, too, reporting that Democrats are “balking at Obama’s jobs bill” and “say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.”

Though it might be surprising that the President is struggling even among his own party to garner support for the plan that he has demanded they pass, it’s no wonder that the country doubts his plan for job growth. After all, with its $447 billion sticker price and reliance on big government spending, it looks much like what he has tried and failed for the duration of his presidency. In short, it calls for more borrowing, spending and higher taxes–none of which is going to help America create more jobs.

Rather than take a stab at making government bigger, Ryan says in a new video that there’s a better path forward–pro-growth tax reform that makes the tax code fairer, competitive, and simpler, all of which will help unleash the creative power of America’s private sector. In an exclusive interview with The Heritage Foundation, Ryan explained why the tax code is so desperately in need of reform:

[The tax code] penalizes all those qualities that make us great and make our economy grow–saving, investing, risk taking. It penalizes those things.

It’s basically a crony capitalist creation, where Congress has decided to put itself in the role of picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy through the tax code.

When you carve out all these preferences to benefit one industry or business over others, you have to raise tax rates higher than you otherwise would have to, which makes it harder for the economy to grow, for businesses to become created.

Ryan says that the tax code has become “an economic incumbent protection plan” that ultimately leads to higher taxes across the board, leaving the United States less competitive in the global economy. His solution? Level the tax code playing field:

What we want to do is get all the social engineering and crony capitalism loopholes out, so we can lower the tax rates and let businesses keep their money in the first place–let people keep their money in the first place–and that way the determining factor of whether a business succeeds or fails will be based upon merit, will be based upon achievement, will be based about innovation, will be based upon whether they’re pleasing customers or not, and not whether they have access to people in Congress or the federal government.

Don’t confuse Ryan’s call for fairness in the tax code with President Obama’s calls for “shared sacrifice” — which for him means higher taxes on America’s job creators. Ryan says there is an inherent difference in aspiration and philosophy about the role of government in the economy:

I aspire to achieve a culture, an economy, a society where we promote equal opportunity, so people can prosper and make the most of their lives. I would argue with the President’s rhetoric and actions–he’s aspiring to a society where the government sees its role as equalizing the results of our lives. It’s a way of looking at the economy and the society as if the pie were fixed, and therefore the government has to have as its role redistributing the slices of the pie more equitably in the name of fairness or equality. That’s not how the world works. That’s not how the economy works.

Our goal is to grow the pie, not have the government figure out how to redistribute slices from some to others–which ends up putting a penalty or a hurdle on growth and innovation and prosperity–but grow the pie itself. I will grant the President that class warfare can make for really good politics, but it doesn’t make for good economics.

Ryan is on the right track. Whereas President Obama wants to keep increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes, Ryan is advocating a much-needed revamp of the tax code. Whereas the President’s policies would permanently increase taxes, increase the size of government, and make America’s unemployment picture even worse, Ryan looks to make government smarter and fairer, allowing businesses to grow, compete, and thrive. The former is a recipe for continued failure; the latter offers some much-needed hope to a country that has been struggling for too long.

September 20, 2011 – 6:32 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , |

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

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

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

Washington, Aug 1 –

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) released the following statement regarding his vote against the debt limit deal agreed to by President Obama and Congressional leaders.

“At the beginning of the year, Democrats demanded a blank check increase in the debt limit with absolutely no spending cuts attached.  When that didn’t work, they demanded an upfront agreement for huge tax increases on America’s job creators.  Conservatives stood firm, and we succeeded in forcing Washington to begin addressing its spending-driven debt crisis.”

“When looking at the details of this deal, a few concerns in particular rise to the top.  The framework opens the door to dangerous national security cuts and raises the possibility that six Democrats and one misguided Republican could put tax increases on the table.”

“The requirement that Congress vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment is a positive step.  Unless we send a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states, however, promises to cut spending today can always disappear tomorrow.  It happens year after year, and it will happen again unless Americans remain vigilant.”

“Our AAA credit rating remains at risk because President Obama and his fellow tax-and-spend liberals refused to support the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan that could actually solve our debt problem and prevent a credit downgrade.  Supporters of the Balanced Budget Amendment have come a long way this year, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.”

September 20, 2011 – 12:25 am Categories: spending out of control | Post a comment

Heritage Foundation Scholars respond to Obama debt reduction proposal (Part 1)

I love going to the Heritage Foundation website for articles like this:

Obama’s Debt Reduction and Tax Proposal

Heritage Responds to Obama’s Debt Reduction and Tax Proposal

Mike Brownfield

September 19, 2011 at 11:16 am

Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s debt reduction and tax increase proposal. Here are their immediate reactions:

_______________

Obama’s Plan Is More Bad News for Defense

President Obama’s approach to deficit reduction, which he outlined in a Rose Garden statement today, means additional bad news for the defense budget and the nation’s security.  According to the fact sheet provided by the White House, accompanying his statement from the Rose Garden, the deficit reduction plan sees the continued application of $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending cuts already included in debt ceiling law that was enacted recently.  Office of Management and Budget Director, Jack Lew, released a blog on August 4th that estimated that this provision will cut roughly $350 billion from the defense budget over ten years.  The new deficit reduction plan would add $1.1 trillion in cuts from defense to come from funding for the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Finally, it would impose an unspecified level of spending reductions in benefits for military personnel.

Today’s statement, however, ignores the fact that President Obama had already proposed an inadequate five-year (FY 2012 through FY 2016) defense budget in February.  The news in this latest statement is the recommended cut in funding for the overseas operations.  While it is unclear what baseline the White House is using in advancing this proposal, the President’s own budget estimates spending only a bit more than half the amount of proposed cuts to the budget for such operations over a similar timeframe.  This not only repudiates a provision in the debt ceiling law to protect these operations through a special instrument for adjustments in the applicable spending ceiling, it implies that the President will apply additional cuts to the budget for the core defense program.

The greatest disappointment, however, is that the President’s deficit reduction proposal sidesteps the kind of structural reforms in the major entitlement programs that are necessary to avoid draconian cuts to the budget for the federal government’s most important constitutional obligation, which is to defend the nation and its vital interests.

Baker Spring

The President’s Disappointing Retreat on Medicare

During the Debt Ceiling negotiations, President Obama tentatively joined the large and growing consensus that the age of eligibility for Medicare enrollment should be raised from 65 to 67. Among serious advocates of entitlement reform, raising the age of normal eligibility has emerged as one of the few precious areas where there has been a   broad consensus. It was a position endorsed by analysts at both the American Enterprise Institute and the New America Foundation, and by former Democratic CBO Director Alice Rivlin and Republican Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. It would also result in significant savings. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that budget savings from the proposal would amount to $124 billion over the period 2012 to 2021.

The Medicare age of eligibility change is long overdue.  When Congress and the Johnson Administration enacted the Medicare program in 1965, the average life span had increased to 70.2 years. They made the decision to retain the normal retirement age at 65, which was enacted for enrollment in Social Security back in 1935. By 2009, the average life span had reached 78.2 years, and by 2030, when the Medicare population is projected to jump to approximately 80 million enrollees, the average life span is projected to top 80 years of age. At that time, there will be roughly 2 younger workers supporting each retiree. We’re doing it to the kids.

The President’s retreat is a disappointment. He must know that long-range structural reform of the Medicare program is necessary, since, in the estimate of the Medicare Actuary, it faces a long term unfunded liability of almost $37 trillion. In his deficit reduction program, he is proposing savings of $248 billion over ten years, and 90 percent of these savings will come from reducing “overpayments” in Medicare.  These include a number of “cats and dogs” in Medicare’s complex payment system, relating to such items as changes in payments to rural providers, payments for post acute care, payments for advanced imaging, earmarking penalties ($500 million)  for non-compliance to deficit reduction, applying the Medicaid rebate (kick-back, price control system) for drug payments to Medicare Part D (a terrible idea); and the old crackdown on Medicare waste, fraud and abuse, which is expected to save $5 billion over ten years. (According to a July 28, 2011 GAO report, there are estimated $48 billion in annual Medicare “improper” payments, representing about 38 percent of the total $125.4 billion estimate for the entire federal government.) The President wants to toughen Medicare payment caps to be enforced by the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), reducing the target from GDP plus 1 percent to GDP plus 0.5 percent.

The President is also proposing to increase Part B and D premiums for upper income retirees; increase the Part B deductible by $25 for new retirees; introduce a Part B “surcharge” for enrollees who buy Medigap coverage that provides “near first dollar” coverage. While these ideas have merit, they are substantially modest and don’t even kick in until 2017. In other words, the reform falls far short of what is needed, as embodied in Heritage’s Saving The American Dream, which delivers a balanced budget within ten years and guarantees the solvency of the Medicare program.

Robert Moffit

September 19, 2011 – 9:18 pm Categories: President Obama, spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment

Houston Nutt raked over coals by various newspapers over Vandy loss

Houston Nutt Mississippi v Tulane

 

Personally I think that Houston Nutt will survive this year and will do better in the next few years since he has done such a good job of keeping some of the best athletes in Mississippi. However, time will tell. It appears he is in for a tough year. After reading these articles I may be wrong about Nutt surviving the year. Notice the way the Vol fans tried to comfort themselves after losing to Florida.

Mike Strange: Vols fans might feel bad, but these folks feel plenty worse

Staff Reports

Sunday, September 18, 2011

There’s no known remedy, at least not one that brings immediate relief.

Post-Florida Syndrome is an affliction that only time can heal. Beating Georgia on Oct. 8 would induce dramatic improvement, but that’s still 19 days out.

Every year, the week before Tennessee plays Florida is an emotional binge. Vol fans know better but they relent and start drinking the orange Kool-Aid. The hangover — PFS — is nasty.

Tennessee lost to the Gators again Saturday, 33-23. Adding injury to insult, the Vols lost one of their best players, too, Justin Hunter.

That’s seven in a row. Seven years of PFS. An epidemic for the books. Even Steve Spurrier never got past five.

It also ranks fourth in terms of Tennessee losing streaks. Alabama holds the trump card, 11 straight from 1971-81. Vanderbilt won nine straight before World War I, from 1901-1913. Ole Miss claimed eight in a row during its heyday, 1959-66.

But enough forlorn history. Today, in a sense of community spirit, I offer a rationalization placebo for PFS.

Here, Tennessee fans, are a bunch of folks that just might feel worse than you do this week.

Ole Miss. The Rebels didn’t just lose to Vanderbilt, they got dominated by the Commodores, 30-7.

That’s two in a row and four out of five. The ‘Dores own Ole Miss. And it’s not before World War I anymore.

“I know we’re better than that,” said Ole Miss coach Houston Nutt.

Maybe not.

Kentucky. The ‘Cats lost the Governor’s Cup to Louisville 24-17 before the home fans in Commonwealth Stadium.

Quarterback Morgan Newton passed for 255 yards, but that’s little consolation. Kentucky allowed six sacks and lost the rushing battle, 181 yards to 35.

“I’d much rather run the ball for 255 yards and throw for 35,” said Kentucky coach Joker Phillips. “Much rather. You have to run the ball to win games.”

Hmm. I wonder if Derek Dooley would rather have run for 288 yards and passed for minus-9 at Florida.

Auburn. A 38-24 loss at Clemson isn’t cause to jump off a bridge. Still, when your defense is ranked 117th out of 120 teams in the nation after giving up 624 yards, that’s depressing.

Besides, Auburn had forgotten what losing feels like. It had been since Nov. 27, 2009. The nation’s longest winning streak is dead at 17 games.

Ohio State. The scandal-plagued Buckeyes got drilled 24-6 by the only team in the nation facing more egregious NCAA allegations, Miami.

The Ohio State University passed for a whopping 35 yards against the ‘Canes, an embarrassing stat to everyone other than possibly the ghost of Woody Hayes.

Cincinnati and Louisville. You won Saturday but learned Pitt and Syracuse are bailing out of the Big East.

Which might be the death knell to your hard-won BCS status. Could it possibly be back to Conference USA? English soccer has a word for it: relegation.

Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor. With the growing likelihood of Texas and Oklahoma headed to the Pac-Whatever, the Big 12 is probably deader than the Big East.

Anybody feeling better yet?

Mike Strange may be reached at strangem@knoxnews.com. Follow him at http://twitter.com/strangemike44 and http://blogs.knoxnews.com/strange.

Below is how the NEMS Daily Journal Nems360.Com saw it out of Mississippi:

REWIND: Vanderbilt 30, Ole Miss 7
by Parrish Alford/NEMS Daily Journal Nems360.Com
3 hrs 11 mins ago | 351 views | 0 0 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Vanderbilt defensive tackle T. J. Greenstone (74) brings down Ole Miss quarterback Randall Mackey (1) during the fourth quarter of an NCAA college football game on Saturday, Sept. 17, 2011, in Nashville, Tenn. Vanderbilt won 30-7. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

Vanderbilt defensive tackle T. J. Greenstone (74) brings down Ole Miss quarterback Randall Mackey (1) during the fourth quarter of an NCAA college football game on Saturday, Sept. 17, 2011, in Nashville, Tenn. Vanderbilt won 30-7. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

slideshow

 
 

Thumbs Up

Freshman Nick Brassell moved to defense during the week and played as the extra defensive back. He finished with one tackle, a forced fumble, fumble recovery and two pass break-ups.

Running back Brandon Bolden, in his first game back from a hairline ankle fracture, averaged 4.9 yards per attempt with 39 yards on eight carries.

Tyler Campbell dropped three of his six punts inside the 20 and averaged 44.5 yards on six kicks with a long of 62.

Thumbs Down

A 77-yard run allowed by the defense, penalties and poor play along the offensive line, questionable throws by the quarterback.

The Rebels could muster only 234 yards of offense, while allowing Vanderbilt 387 yards total, 281 on the ground.

The Ole Miss offense didn’t score its first touchdown against an FBS team this season until 2 minutes, 15 seconds remained. That’s when Zack Stoudt passed 47 yards to Donte Moncrief, but the game had been in hand for quite some time.

Ole Miss is 1-9 in its last 10 SEC games.

Keys To Victory

Evaluating the keys to victory in Thursday’s GameDay section.

1. Clamp down in the run game: In a carbon copy of the 2010 loss to Vanderbilt, Ole Miss was very good on many plays but bad enough on enough plays to make a huge difference.

Subtract a 26-yard misdirection run and a 77-yard touchdown by Zac Stacy and a 19-yard keeper for a touchdown Larry Smith, and the Commodores averaged 3.4 yards per attempt.

But you can’t subtract those plays, and Vanderbilt rushed for almost 300 yards, 281 total.

2. Take care of the football: In the first two games, Zack Stoudt lost fumbles that led to touchdowns. Troubling as those were, the Rebels would have been ahead of the curve if he’d have done that and no more against Vanderbilt.

The Rebels gained two fumbles and an interception but lost five interceptions – Stoudt was under heat much of the time – to finish minus-2 in turnover ratio.

3. Win third downs: Four-for-14 on third downs is not a winning ratio.

MVP Nick Brassell – The freshman showed up in the big-play categories with a forced fumble, recovered fumble and two pass break-ups. He’ll be in defensive meetings this week and will likely see his playing time increase.

Bottom Line

As bad as it was it wasn’t the largest margin of defeat for a Houston Nutt Ole Miss team. That was last year at Tennessee 52-14.

That being said, this game was worse because of the perception of the Vanderbilt program. It will be a difficult week for Nutt to keep his players focused and get them prepared to face a Georgia team in search of a convincing SEC win for its coach, Mark Richt, who has also come under fire.

Here is another view from the Daily Mississippian:

Disappointment — Ole Miss falls 30-7 to Vanderbilt

 
 

 

Article | September 17, 2011 – 4:12pm| By Austin Miller

 

 

 

 

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Outplayed. Outcoached. Outmatched. The Ole Miss football team and coaching staff are looking for answers after a 30-7 loss at Vanderbilt in Saturday afternoon’s Southeastern Conference opener.

“Everything is disappointing,” head coach Houston Nutt said of the game. “I have never felt that way on a sideline. It was just not right. We didn’t have that confidence.”

The offense gained only 234 yards of total offense, while junior quarterback Zack Stoudt threw five interceptions in his first SEC start.

“We were pressing too hard, trying to make too much happen,” Stoudt said.

Ole Miss and Vanderbilt played a scoreless first quarter. Midway through the second quarter, junior running back Zac Stacy moved the Commodores into the red zone with a 26-yard gain on a statue-of-liberty run. Two plays later, senior quarterback Larry Smith scored on a 19-yard touchdown run.

Things went from bad to worse later in the second quarter. Vanderbilt pressured Stoudt and he threw his second interception of the game, which junior cornerback Trey Wilson returned 52 yards for a Vanderbilt touchdown.

Just before the half, a broken play on a backwards pass to Stacy went for 34 yards to move the ball inside the Rebels’ 10-yard line. Two plays later, freshman Jerron Seymour powered his way nine yards through the Ole Miss defense for another score. The first half came to a close on Stoudt’s third interception of the game.

Coming out of halftime, on the third play from scrimmage, junior center A.J. Hawkins snapped the ball over Stoudt’s head and sophomore running back Jeff Scott kicked the ball out of the back of the end zone for a safety.

After the ensuing kickoff, the Commodores drove down the field and converted a 3rd-and-long on a 33-yard screen pass to Seymour. The Ole Miss defense stopped the bleeding and got off the field with senior cornerback Marcus Temple’s interception in the end zone for a touchback.

Stacy added to his career-high 167 rushing yards when he ran untouched down the Ole Miss sideline for a 77-yard touchdown run to put Vanderbilt up 30-0. In the closing minutes of the game, Stoudt connected with freshman wide receiver Donte Moncrief for a 47-yard touchdown pass to bring the final score to 30-7.

“I’ve got to let (the players) know I still believe in them,” Nutt said. “I got to do a much better job of getting them ready to go.”

About the Author

September 19, 2011 – 9:45 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , |

Rick Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney went after each other at the debate over this term “Ponzi scheme.”

Janet M. LaRue

Janet M. LaRue  

Romney’s Ponzi Phobia

9/19/2011

When it comes to Social Security, Republicans should stop treating seniors like the feeble-minded demographic portrayed in commercials written by 13-year-olds on Madison Avenue.

It’s like the home security commercial targeting seniors for a medical alert pendant to be worn around the neck. White-haired “Mom” didn’t want one because “it was for “some old person.” But daughter, seen patting Mom’s hand, “talked Mom into it.” Next we see “Mom” carrying a basket of laundry down a flight of uncarpeted stairs without holding the handrail. Sure enough, Mom’s lying at the bottom of the staircase pressing her alert button because she’s fallen, broken her hip and can’t get up because “the pain was terrible.” “Mom” and daughter are so glad that she was wearing her alert and could summon help.

You expect to see a disclaimer at the end: “Don’t try this at home. These are actors who are paid to behave stupidly. You could hurt yourself.”

Madison Avenue convinced the marketing geniuses at the security company that they can sell more medical alerts by scaring seniors even if it insults them. I don’t patronize a company run by upstarts who think senior is synonymous with senile. I doubt that many seniors do.

Gov. Mitt Romney and political commentators, such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris, are treating seniors as condescendingly as the commercial. To hear them tell it, if Gov. Rick Perry calls Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme,” seniors will have a seizure, and press a political alert hanging around our neck, which will connect us to the Obama campaign.

Not likely, unless we fall down the stairs and land on our head.

Seniors didn’t put Barack Hussein Obama in the White House. Those of us 65 and over are the only voting bloc who chose McCain over Obama—and by eight percentage points.

Obama’s disapproval rating is at 55 percent and his approval rating is 44 percent. It means that other voting blocs are beginning to wise up to what seniors knew in 2008. Seniors are the least likely group to vote for Obama in 2012.

For one thing, we rejected Obama’s outrageous and vague promise to fundamentally transform the greatest nation in history. And certainly not by a community organizer with a resume thinner than our hair who thinks voting “absent” is leadership and that America should repent for its greatness.

Our sight and hearing may be diminished, but we still know bovine scatology when we smell it.

Seniors deal with hard truth every day. Many of us handle it without our beloved spouse at our side. Health and financial concerns are more pressing. We live on a fixed income and still know the checkbook has to balance. We’re not the demographic maxing out credit cards and living beyond our means. Many dear old friends reside only in our memories. We know that our days dwindle down to a precious few. But it doesn’t mean that our minds have departed.

We certainly can handle the truth that Social Security isn’t sustainable for our children and grandchildren. We know that without a major restructuring, it will remain a pyramid scheme deficient of funds and contributors, a sham promise of retirement security for future generations.

The Social Security trustees released a 244-page report on Monday revealing the gravity of the situation. Page 13 states that payroll tax contributions for 2010 were $544.8 billion; total expenditures were $584.9 billion. That’s a $40 billion deficit. The Department of Labor released a report on Monday stating that there are only 1.5 workers supporting Social Security for every one recipient.

During the Republican debate on Monday night, Romney again accused Perry of scaring seniors by calling Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme.” Where does Romney get the idea that we were clueless until Perry mentioned it?

What is over the top is Romney’s pretense or delusion that Perry coined the term. Stanley Kurtz of National Review cites scores of uses of the term by Republicans and Democrats, academics, and journalists, long enough for Romney to have heard it long before Perry said it. Kurtz concludes in “Perry and the Ponzis”:

Our historical tour of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme confirms what we already knew: Rick Perry’s remarks are uncharacteristically bold for a politician, most especially a candidate in the midst of a presidential race. Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades.

So the question today is not simply whether Rick Perry will be punished or rewarded for showing the honesty even many liberal commentators once pined for. The more interesting issue raised by this historical investigation may be the fate of the Democratic Party and the media. Where today are the liberal and centrist Democrats who only yesterday called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and supported bold reforms? Where now are the columnists and editors at Newsweek and the New York Times willing to reward truth-tellers and to criticize reporters who cover for cowardly politicians? The fate of Rick Perry’s blunt talk may tell us more than we want to know, not only about Social Security, but also about who we are and what we have become.

What scares most seniors is that our country will be lying at the bottom of the stairs, broken and unable to get up if it remains in the hands of Barack Obama.

Related posts:

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2) John Stossel – Government’s Ponzi Scheme Uploaded by LibertyPen on Apr 21, 2010 A look at the Social Security system. By contrast, Bernie Madoff seems like a shoplifter. http://www.LibertyPen.com Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security ______________________________ Governor Rick […]

Only difference between Ponzi scheme and Social Security is you can say no to Ponzi Scheme jh2d

Is Social Security  a Ponzi Scheme? I just started a series on this subject. In this article below you will see where the name “Ponzi scheme” came from and if it should be applied to the Social Security System. Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! 9/14/2011 | Email John Stossel | Columnist’s Archive Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I […]

Despite Brantley’s view,Social Security really is a Ponzi scheme (Part 1) (jh1d)

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 1) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. Max Brantley wants to keep insisting that this will be Perry’s downfall but  think that truth will win out this time around. This is a series of articles […]

My philosophy and my favorite blog posts

I have got several comments during the last 35 weeks that my blog has been in existence and the reaction as been positive and negative. My evangelical and conservative political views have generated the most vocal response. Here are some of my favorite blog posts: 27 Club How should we then live? Series by Francis […]

Video of Republican Debate of Sept 7, 2011

I got this off the internet. I don’t agree with the comments below. For instance, I do think that Security is a Ponzi scheme. Uploaded by PostingsPlus on Sep 8, 2011 Who do you think stood out the most as a leader in this debate? Share you thoughts on http://www.postingsplus.com, a new political social network. […]

Social Security a Ponzi scheme?

Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security Dan Mitchell on Social Security I have said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and sometimes you will hear someone in the public say the same thing. Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner […]

Social Security need a few tweaks or is it a ponzi scheme?

On the Arkansas Times Blog the person using the username “the outlier” noted: Saline, leave SS out of the mix. It is solvent through 2037, and can be made solvent indefinitely with minor tweaks. So many people think that the Social Security is a great investment plan and it may only need a few tweaks. […]

Milton Friedman called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, but liberals keep praising it

On the Arkansas Times Blog on June 11, 2011 the person going by the username Jake de Snake noted,”Current empirical evidence indicates that the American welfare is successful in reducing poverty, inequality and mortality considerably. Public pensions, for instance, are estimated to keep 40% of American seniors above the poverty line.” If Social Security was […]

September 19, 2011 – 8:53 am Categories: Social Security | Comments (1)

Tagged , , , |

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 is such a nightmare of complexity that even Democrats routinely have supported “patches” and “band-aids” to protect millions of additional households from getting trapped in this surreal parallel tax universe – one that requires taxpayers to calculate their taxes two different ways, with the IRS getting the maximum amount of money from the two returns. (Hong Kong, by contrast, give taxpayers the option of calculating their taxes two different ways, but they’re allowed to pay the smaller of the two amounts.)

Notwithstanding the AMT’s status as arguably the worst feature of the internal revenue code, President Obama apparently wants to double down on this horrific policy by creating a new version of this nightmarish provision.

Here are some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal‘s coverage, including a key observation that Obama’s scheme is just another version of the AMT.

The administration’s principle resembles the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was first adopted in 1969 and was intended to hit the superwealthy. The AMT has been hitting an increasing number of the middle class because it wasn’t indexed for inflation, and Congress has continually wrestled with how to get rid of it.

The WSJ article also notes that a glaring inconsistency in the White House’s rhetoric. the plan is supposed to be a “very significant” tax hike, but doubling the tax burden on millionaires would only raise $19 billion per year. In other words, the Administration’s class-warfare rhetoric is probably just cover for a tax hike that actually will hit a lot of people with far more modest incomes.

The proposal also could apply to a broader selection of taxpayers—all households with incomes of more than $1 million. Those earners are expected to pay an average of $845,000 this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Assuming the households in the group of 22,000 pay that amount, even doubling their tax burden would raise just $19 billion a year at a time when deficit reduction is being measured in trillions of dollars. That doesn’t take into effect any change in taxpayer behavior prompted by a new tax regime. A senior administration official said that depending on where the minimum rate is set, the plan could be a “very significant” revenue raiser. The official wouldn’t provide details. …Some conservative economists say such a proposal could put a drag on capital markets and ignores the fact that many companies have already paid tax on the income before it is distributed to owners as dividends or capital gains.

The New York Times, to its credit, provides a fair description of the issue (including a much-needed acknowledgement that Warren Buffett may not have been honest and/or accurate), and also suggests that Obama may be proposing to replace the existing AMT with this new version (though that presumably would negate its impact as a revenue-raiser).

Mr. Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise. But his idea of a millionaires’ minimum tax will be prominent in the broad plan for long-term deficit reduction that he will outline at the White House on Monday. Mr. Obama’s proposal is certain to draw opposition from Republicans, who have staunchly opposed raising taxes on the affluent because, they say, it would discourage investment. It could also invite scrutiny from some economists who have disputed Mr. Buffett’s assertion that the megarich pay a lower tax rate over all. Mr. Buffett’s critics say many of the rich actually make more from wages than from investments. …The administration wants such a tax to replace the alternative minimum tax, which was created decades ago to make sure the richest taxpayers with plentiful deductions and credits did not avoid income taxes, but which now hits millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class.

Actually, the AMT also hits lots of middle-class families since having kids is considered a “preference” for tax purposes.

But that’s just an insult layered on top of injury. What makes Obama’s new scheme so destructive is that it would (though the White House has not explained the details) somehow classify dividends and capital gains as “preference” items – even though everyone acknowledges that such income already is double taxed!

In other words, Obama claims to be concerned about jobs, but he is proposing a big tax hike on the saving and investment that is necessary to create jobs. Amazing.

Regular readers will recognize this video about Obama’s class-warfare tax policy. But if you haven’t seen it, five reasons are presented to explain why it will backfire.

But look at the bright side. At least accountants and tax lawyers (and don’t forget bankruptcy specialists) will get more business if Obama’s plan is implemented.

September 19, 2011 – 8:19 am Categories: President Obama, Taxes | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Celebrating the Constitution with Heritage Foundation

Brandon Stewart wrote an excellent article on the founding of the constitution:

This weekend America will celebrate Constitution Day, created to honor the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention. Earlier this week, former Attorney General Ed Meese reflected on the importance ordinary citizens can play in preserving our Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States of America has endured over two centuries. It remains the object of reverence for nearly all Americans and an object of admiration by peoples around the world. Unfortunately, the assault by 20th century liberal theorists and activist judges has seriously undermined respect for America’s core principles, denigrating some constitutional rights they disagree with and making up others. Fortunately, there has been a renewed interest in the Constitution in recent years, as Americans seek to understand the founding principles and enduring truths that form the bedrock of our chosen form of self-government. Clearly, the future of liberty depends on America reclaiming its constitutional first principles.

As Meese explains, this was something President Ronald Reagan keenly understood. In a 1981 proclamation, Reagan explained the paramount importance of an engaged public:

Daniel Webster once wrote, “We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land — nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.” September 17, 1981, marks the 194th anniversary of our Constitution. Its Framers scarcely could have conceived of the timelessness of the document they so carefully drafted. They prepared a Constitution to meet the needs of a fledgling nation. Yet today, amid the complexities of the twentieth century, that same Constitution, with only several amendments, serves a nation whose territory spans a continent and whose population exceeds two hundred and twenty-five million. With the passing of each year, it becomes increasingly evident that, in the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, our Constitution will “endure for ages to come.”

The Constitution establishes the Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary, and through a deliberate allocation of authority, it defines the limits of each upon the others. It particularizes the liberties which, as free men and women, we insist upon, and it constrains both Federal and State powers to ensure that those precious liberties are faithfully protected. It is our blueprint for freedom, our commitment to ourselves and to each other.

It is by choice, not by imposition, that the Constitution is the supreme law of our Land. As we approach the bicentennial of this charter, each of us has a personal obligation to acquaint ourselves with it and with its central role in guiding our Nation. While a constitution may set forth rights and liberties, only the citizens can maintain and guarantee those freedoms. Active and informed citizenship is not just a right; it is a duty.

So this weekend, take a moment to read the Constitution, watch and share our video, take our short quiz, and reflect on the ways we can all work to promote this amazing document.

Brandon Stewart

As digital communications associate, Brandon Stewart blogs for The Foundry, assists with social media efforts, and produces a wide variety of videos

September 19, 2011 – 6:51 am Categories: Current Events, Ronald Reagan | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 2)

David Barton: America’s Religious Heritage as demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations (part 2)

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 2 of 5

Uploaded by  on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

David Barton did a great job with this article America’s Religious Heritage As Demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations :

David Barton – 01/2009
America’s Religious Heritage
As Demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations

Religious activities at presidential inaugurations have become the target of criticism in recent years, 1 with legal challenges being filed to halt activities as simple as inaugural prayers and the use of “so help me God” in the presidential oath. 2 These critics – evidently based on a deficient education – wrongly believe that the official governmental arena is to be aggressively secular and religion-free. The history of inaugurations provides some of the most authoritative proof of the fallacy of these modern arguments.

Signer of the Constitution Rufus King similarly affirmed:

[B]y the oath which they [the laws] prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system – their morals were destitute of its powerful sanction while their oaths neither awakened the hopes nor fears which a belief in Christianity inspires. 8

James Iredell, a ratifier of the Constitution and a U. S. Supreme Court justice appointed by George Washington, also confirmed:

According to the modern definition [1788] of an oath, it is considered a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which would bind his conscience most.” 9

The great Daniel Webster – considered the foremost lawyer of his time 10 – also declared:

“What is an oath?” . . . [I]t is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues or punish our vices. . . . [O]ur system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property and all our rights, are founded on or rest on Christianity and a religious belief. 11

Clearly, at the time the Constitution was written, an oath was a religious obligation. George Washington understood this, and at the beginning of his presidency had prayed “So help me God” with his oath; at the end of his presidency eight years later in 1796 in his “Farewell Address,” he reaffirmed that an oath was religious when he pointedly queried:

[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths . . . ? 12

Numerous other authoritative sources affirm that oaths were inherently religious. 13

The evidence is clear: from a constitutional viewpoint, the administering of a presidential oath was the administering of a religious obligation – something that was often acknowledged during presidential inaugurations following Washington’s. For example, during his 1825 inauguration, John Quincy Adams declared:

I appear, my fellow-citizens, in your presence and in that of Heaven to bind myself by the solemnities of religious obligation to the faithful performance of the duties allotted to me in the station to which I have been called. 14  

8. Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending The Constitution of the State of New York (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), p. 575, Rufus King, October 30, 1821.(Return)

9. Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1836), Vol. IV, p. 196, James Iredell, July 30, 1788. (Return)

10. Dictionary of American Biography, s. v. “Webster, Daniel.” (Return)

11. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defense of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young, Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), pp. 43, 51. (Return)

12. George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), p. 23. (Return)

13. See, for example, James Coffield Mitchell, The Tennessee Justice’s Manual and Civil Officer’s Guide (Nashville: Mitchell and C. C. Norvell, 1834), pp. 457-458; see also City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 522-524 (Sup. Ct. S.C. 1846); and many other legal sources. (Return)

14. John Quincy Adams, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, James D. Richardson, editor (Washington, D.C.: 1900), Vol. 2, p. 860, March 4th 1825.(Return)
September 19, 2011 – 6:38 am Categories: David Barton, Founding Fathers | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Obama wants to help liberal states

Obama wants to help liberal states

It is clear now the agenda behind the recent jobs program President Obama has proposed. He wants to help liberal states with their budget problems.

One Reason Obama Wants Another State Bailout

Posted by Tad DeHaven

I recently discussed why the additional federal subsidies for state and local government that President Obama is proposing as part of his “job plan” are a bad idea. A new study from two Harvard economists suggests that the president’s affinity for these subsidies might have something to do with the fact that the aid would be particularly helpful to states with more left-leaning legislators and strong public sector unions.

The study from Daniel J. Nadler and Sounman Hong (see here) found that states with stronger public sector unions and a higher proportion of left-leaning state legislators face higher borrowing costs:

We find that, all things being equal, states with weaker unions, weaker collective bargaining rights, and fewer left-leaning state legislators pay less in borrowing costs at similar levels of debt and similar levels of unexpected budget deficits than do states with stronger unions and more left-leaning legislators. More practically, these findings suggest that the strength of public sector unions has become among the most important factors in bond market perceptions of a state’s risk of financial collapse.

Why do these states face higher borrowing costs? Nadler and Hong explain:

These “political” factors might signify to the bond market whether a state government has the willingness and capacity to initiate needed fiscal adjustments and austerity measures during the state fiscal crises that followed the financial crisis, and thus might provide some information to market participants about the likeliness that a given state government will choose to default on its debt instead of making politically difficult or undesirable budget cuts. Similarly, public sector labor environment variables, such as union strength, might signify to market participants the degree of organized political opposition state lawmakers would have to overcome to implement such austerity measures.

In a corresponding Wall Street Journal op-ed, Nadler and Paul E. Peterson, director of Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, do a nice job of explaining why the separation of responsibility between the federal government and the states has been crucial to the country’s economic rise:

Federal rescue of states is a dramatic departure from past practice. State bankruptcies date back to the 1840s when, amid a financial crisis, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois and five other states discovered they had invested too heavily in infrastructure. The last state bankruptcy was in Arkansas during the 1930s. But overall the instances were few; in each case the federal government refused to come up with a fix.

Bankrupt states paid the price, but for the country as a whole, a system of fiscally sovereign states has proven incredibly beneficial to the nation’s economic well-being. Every state is responsible for its own police, fire, schools, transport and much more, and most of the time they do reasonably well. If they manage their affairs so as to attract business, commerce and talented workers, states prosper. If states make a mess of things, citizens and businesses vote with their feet, marching off to a part of the country that works better.

It is this exceptional federalist system that helped drive the rapid growth of the American economy throughout the first two centuries of the country’s history. Because state and local governments competed with one another for venture capital, entrepreneurial talent and skilled workers, governments generally had to be attentive to the needs of both citizens and commerce.

Unfortunately, the 20th century’s trend for the federal government to subsidize and manage more and more state and local affairs has worsened in the last 10 years as the chart in my blog post shows. If our bloated federal government is ever to be reined in, a return to fiscal federalism is a must. And if the states are to get their financial houses in order, state policymakers can’t be allowed to believe that a federal policy of “too big to fail” applies to them. (See this Cato essay for more on fiscal federalism.)

September 19, 2011 – 6:35 am Categories: Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Tagged , , , |