Taylor Swift, hot; “Ring of Fire” at the renovated Arkansas Rep, great; “Judgment at Nuremberg” at the Weekend Theater, moving. But the biggest art event in Arkansas this fall has nothing to do with the performing arts: It’s the opening of Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Alice Walton and family’s billion-dollar investment in Bentonville.
Even if portraits of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart and Charles Willson Peale don’t make your heart beat faster or bring you to tears, they are part of American history and treasured works of art. And the sweep and beauty of Asher Durand’s “Kindred Spirits” just might make you sob a bit (folks in New York have definitely wept bitter tears over their masterpiece going to Arkansas, Alice Walton having outbid, at $35 million, the Metropolitan Museum of Art for the painting).
The museum won’t be all portraits of significant figures in history, but a broad look at the history of American art, from rare 17th century portraits to the Hudson River School, early 20th century art to contemporary installation pieces. So there will be plenty to see at Crystal Bridges when it opens Nov. 11, 2011, or 11-11-11 (which happens to be Veterans Day) and for years to come. The museum puts Arkansas on the map.
The opening day celebration is sure to be accompanied by much as yet unpublicized but sure to happen hullaballoo. Having no facts, let’s suppose: One of the museum’s acquisitions is a Nick Cave “Soundsuit,” which is just as it sounds: A sculptural costume crafted to make sound when the wearer moves. Naturally, dancers have choreographed performances for the suits, and what better way to tie performance art and the CBMAA collection together than to have dancers in soundsuits swishing and swirling about the spring-fed ponds the museum bridges?
Alice Walton announced she would build the museum in 2006, then expected to be a three-year project. Her vision for the museum continued to grow, and she ditched the planned 1950s cut-off date to expand into contemporary work. The Moshe Safdie-designed complex began to grow too. A rectangle of connected buildings, tucked into a ravine that recalls “Kindred Spirits,” bank the reflecting pools fed by Crystal Springs. Six galleries showcase the art chronologically; one of the bridges contains the restaurant. A library holds manuscripts and other ephemera Walton has collected to support study of the collection, an amphitheater (nicknamed “the turtle” for its shape) will accommodate public gatherings, classrooms will be available for students and studios for artists. Of course, there will be a gift shop. More than three miles of trails crisscross the 120-acre site and they, too, are galleries of sorts, passing through Ozark uplands and wetlands, by cultural features, all dotted with sculpture.
So what’s on the walls? The museum has made periodic announcements of acquisitions, crumbs that Arkansas’s art lovers will follow to Bentonville. Paintings, drawings, sculpture. The work, bought at auction and privately, is by such American masters, besides those already mentioned, as John Singleton Copley, Thomas Eakins, Thomas Moran, Benjamin West, Winslow Homer, John Singer Sargent, Maxfield Parrish, George Wesley Bellows, Marsden Hartley, Norman Rockwell. Romare Bearden. Thomas Hart Benton. Jacob Lawrence. Andrew Wyeth. Ground-breaking modern artists Jackson Pollock, Arshile Gorky and Adolph Gottlieb. Pop artists Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Marisol and Claes Oldenburg. Hyperrealist Chuck Close. Silhouette cutting artist Kara Walker. Contemporaries we won’t have to travel to the coasts to see: Sculptor Karen LaMonte. Installation artists Jenny Holzer and Devorah Sperber. Weird naturalists Walton Ford and Tom Uttech. Social commentator Kerry James Marshall. You get the picture.
Walton has collected work by Arkansas artists as well — Carroll Cloar, George Dombek, Pat Musick, Doug Stowe. If there’s not sculpture by Anita Huffington, I’d be surprised.
All of this is richly supported by the Walton Family Foundation, which announced a staggering $800 million contribution to the endowment last spring, the largest gift ever made to an American museum at one time (according to the Wall Street Journal) and a sum that puts the museum in the big leagues. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art has a billion-dollar endowment, but it’s been around awhile.) Northwest Arkansas businesses are making donations to the museum as well.
Admission to Crystal Bridges is free, thanks, the museum says, to a $20 million contribution by Walmart. Memberships (whose costs range from $35 for students to $5,000 for benefactors) bring certain perks, including free admission to special exhibits and store discounts. The first 3,000 to buy memberships were rewarded with invitations to preview the museum Nov. 9; the museum will be open around the clock to accommodate them. Museum hours are still to be determined.
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 44)
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, August 1, 2011 – Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Vice Chairman of the House Budget Committee and Chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force for the Republican Study Committee (RSC), issued the following statement tonight after voting against the agreement to raise the debt ceiling:
“While a step in the right direction, this is hardly the resolution I was hoping to come out of this process. The American people wanted to see us come up with an actual solution to address our deficit and debt crisis, not another ‘deal’ rushed through Congress at the last minute. Aside from an insufficient amount of spending cuts and the threat of tax hikes on the American people, what is most unfortunate about this bill is the fact that it doesn’t address the exploding costs of our entitlement programs, which are by far the biggest threat to our credit rating.
“Above all else, I am most disappointed in the lack of commitment on the part of negotiators to seeing that a balanced budget amendment was sent to the states for ratification. No matter how much spending we cut, no matter how many blue ribbon commissions we form, a balanced budget amendment is the only solution that will resolve our long-term deficit and debt problem. The American people expected more of us—it’s regrettable we put off the tough decisions once again.”
I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen.
For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t had a job. Each week he collects what’s known in Britain as Social Security. The government looks after him, his wife and their children. But accepting welfare payments means accepting the rules of those who hand them out.
Mrs. Ramsey: My opinion, anyway you feel as they own you. You know, there is no other way of putting it. Say I got a job tomorrow, because I needed something, well I know that means I’ve got to go down there and report it. Because I couldn’t go into the job because you’d be looking over your shoulder thinking well the Social Security is coming in. And I’m going to be done for it. It’s just hopeless, you can’t fight against that.
Mr. Ramsey: The jobs are out there you only come up with about 45 pounds a week. And you need a doctors stamp over there. You see, you finish up with about 29 pound. So what good is it working? You still get the same thing, you know what I mean? I can’t make any sense of it.
Friedman: Of course, he’s quite right. It may not pay to get a job now. That’s not his fault and I don’t blame him. He’s acting sensibly and intelligently for his own interest and the interest of his family. It’s the fault of the system which takes away the incentive from him to get a job.
But suppose you were cruel and simply took away the welfare overnight. Cut it off. What would happen? He would find a job. What kind of a job? I don’t know. It might not be a very nice job. It might not be a very attractive job. But at some wage, at some level of pay, there will always be a job which he could get for himself. It might be also that he would be driven to rely on some private charity. He might have to get soup kitchen help or the equivalent. Again, I’m not saying that’s desirable or nice or a good thing it isn’t, but as a matter of actual fact as to what would happen, there is little doubt that he would find some way to earn a living.
The American government is trying to break the welfare trend. These people were unemployed. They are now being trained at the taxpayers expense. It may or may not lead to a real job.
Lawrence Davenport: Here we have a vast national welfare system which is diametrically opposed to everything that America believes in. Because America was founded on a work ethic, has practiced a work ethic, and it’s said this is what we want everybody to do. An opportunity to hold a job in America.
Friedman: Everyone here has to clock in and do a full days work. It’s an attempt to make it seem like a real job.
Lawrence Davenport: We’re saying a job is a part of the American way of life and we’re going to help you find a job. So that you can get a piece of the pie. You can pay taxes, you can become a part of that American dream.
Friedman: But the dream isn’t working. Schemes like this run under the government’s Comprehensive Education and Training Act (CETA) have a high drop out rate and many trainees end up back where they began, on welfare.
The men and women who administer CETA and similar programs, the officials of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare are dedicated people. Their motives are good. Their achievements are not.
The results of these programs have been disappointing. Why? I believe that the basic reason is because it is very hard to achieve good objectives through bad means. And the means we have been using are bad in two very different respects.
In the first place, all of these programs involve some people spending other people’s money for objectives that are determined by still a third group of people. Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody has the same dedication to achieving somebody else’s objectives that he displays when he pursues his own.
Beyond this, the programs have a insidious effect on the moral fiber of both the people who administer the programs and the people who are supposedly benefiting from it. For the people who administer it, it instills in them a feeling of almost Godlike power. For the people who are supposedly benefiting it instills a feeling of childlike dependence. Their capacity for personal decision making atrophies. The result is that the programs involved are misuse of money, they do not achieve the objectives which it was their intention to achieve. But far more important than this, they tend to rot away the very fabric that holds a decent society together.
If you think that’s overstating the case, look what ATW found when it made a special investigation into the spending of the vast funds it administers.
Public Health Service worker: We just got the plan from the Public Health Service on reducing unnecessary beds.
Friedman: In these reels of tape that record every payment made, every recipient, they found evidence that a staggering $7.5 billion had been lost by fraud, waste and abuse in one year.
Doctors, building contractors, hospitals, schools, welfare recipients, everyone had been fraudulently dipping into the pot. And the investigation isn’t over yet.
The inevitable consequence of having a huge pot of taxpayers money is that all of us want to get our hands in it. You can be sure that we’ll all be able to find very good reasons why we should be the ones to spend somebody else’s money.
Somebody or other put up a good case for spending taxpayers money to subsidize rents in New York City, including the rents of these apartments. The people who occupy these apartments pay something like $200 a month less than the market rent. And that subsidy comes out of the taxes of people, most of whom are much poorer than the people who live here. It’s not unusual for this sort of thing to happen when government tries to do good with our money.
Look at what happened in Chicago. For most visitors, the immediate impression is of a rich, prosperous, bustling city. But like every large city in America, it has its problem areas. Over crowded slums breeding poverty and crime.
After WWII, one such area developed in Hyde Park. In the 50’s, plans were drawn up to pull down large areas of slum buildings and to rebuild using government funds under an urban renewal program. It was to be a show project replacing a blighted area with an integrated community. Who controlled the spending of that government money? It was in fact, my own University of Chicago which felt it’s very existence threatened by the spread of urban blight and crime. Government money was used to tear down an area that contained many small shops as well as families of low income. Once the area was cleared, private money rebuilt it with middle class apartments, townhouses and shopping complexes. The blight had been cleared here, but only to be shifted elsewhere.
Joe Gardner: In may instances, when government administers large grants, a lot of those funds don’t wind up directly serving the people and achieving the objectives that were the intent of the programs. Because the grant has too feed that large government bureaucracy.
The details surrounding the $535 million government loan to Solyndra – the now-bankrupt solar energy company that had been the green apple of the president’s eye – are still emerging. It remains to be seen whether or not the Obama administration broke any laws when it pushed the loan out the door despite obvious problems with the company’s finances.
At the very least, the administration is guilty of wasting taxpayer money. In that regard, it’s no different than all the other administrations that have tried to tinker with energy markets. When the dust settles, Solyndra will take its place alongside other infamous federal energy boondoggles, including the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, and the Superconducting Super Collider. (All of these and more are discussed in a Cato essay on federal energy subsidies.)
Congressional Republicans are salivating over the prospects of a scandal involving a key initiative of the administration. But Republicans should be careful when casting stones given their past and present support for energy subsidies. (Note to investigative reporters: Republican [and Democratic] governors like to hand out subsidies to businesses, which often backfire on taxpayers. I’d know.)
As the political circus over the Solyndra loan unfolds, let’s not lose sight of the fact that the more important question is whether taxpayers should be forced to subsidize energy companies to begin with. The Cato essay argues that they shouldn’t:
The private sector is entirely capable of performing research into coal, nuclear, solar, and alternative energy sources for itself. Businesses will fund new technologies when there is a reasonable chance of commercial success, as they do in every other private industry. Federal subsidies may even be actively damaging to our energy future by steering markets in the wrong direction, away from the best long-term energy solutions…
Policymakers often make grandiose promises, such as proposing to make America ‘energy independent’ or to convert the nation to a ‘green economy.’ Those visions don’t make any sense, but even if they did history shows that the Department of Energy would be incapable of putting them into place with any degree of competence. Federal energy schemes are often poorly managed and generate huge cost overruns, or they aim at objectives that make little economic sense[.]
President Obama’s job speech reacted to by Heritage Foundation scholars (Part 4)
Ernest Istook at the Saint Paul Tea Party Rally 4/16/2011 Part 1
Ernest Istook, US Congressman, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org, spoke at the Saint Paul Tea Party Rally 4/16/2011. Hosted by North Star Tea Party Patriots, and Sue Jeffers.
Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s jobs speech delivered to a joint session of Congress. Here are some of their immediate reactions:
President Calls for Ill-advised Federal School Construction
As expected, tonight President Obama called on taxpayers to send their hard-earned money to the federal government so that Washington can pour that money into public school construction. In an attempt to boost job growth, the president suggested spending billions on school infrastructure projects to “modernize 35,000 public schools.”
Since President Obama came into office, spending on public education has skyrocketed:
Education budget in 2008: $59.2 billion
Education budget in 2011: $69.9 billion
Department of Education “stimulus” award (Spring 2009): $98 billion
“Edujobs” public education bailout (Summer 2010): $10 billion
And state and local school construction spending has also seen significant increases.
By some estimates, inflation-adjusted school construction spending has increased 150 percent in the last two decades. And unfortunately, profligacy and waste are the norm. Remember the $500 million RFK high school in Los Angeles, built last year after a California bond referendum was enacted? There are certainly schools in ill-repair, but this maintenance should be a local concern. Washington should not be in the business of school window repair, updating facilities, or repainting buildings. Schools don’t need increased federal funding for school repairs; they need more flexibility with funding to be able to use dollars for needs they consider pressing.
The president’s proposal to funnel more taxpayer dollars into school construction has both constitutional and pragmatic problems. School construction has historically been – and should remain – the job of states and localities. Federal forays into school construction have been rare and indirect. Federally-funded school construction is also a terribly expensive way to build schools: Washington-funded jobs must pay prevailing wages, increasing costs on average by 22 percent.
In calling for federally-funded school construction, President Obama is once again supporting Washington overreach in education. But he’s also behind the game in terms of the direction school policy is trending. As states and localities begin embracing online learning – and as education shifts to a world outside of the walls of physical school buildings – President Obama is pushing to subsidize the old model. The administration might think “school construction” polls better than other government “jobs” projects, but it’s just as destined to be a waste of taxpayer money, and a public policy failure.
– Lindsey Burke
Not A ‘Jobs Plan’ — Just Stimulus Redux
What President Obama calls a “jobs” plan is really just stimulus redux: a typical Keynesian-style set of infrastructure, school construction, teacher pay, unemployment benefits, and temporary tax breaks that have demonstrably failed in the two-and-a-half years since the $825-billion Recovery Act.
Obamanomics has left the economy with a growth rate just a fraction above 1 percent, nearly 2 million fewer Americans working, and an unemployment rate higher now than when he took office. Government cannot “grow the economy” (as if it were a field of strawberries), and it cannot create private sector jobs. It can only maintain conditions conducive to growth — limiting government spending and regulation, keeping tax rates low, and removing the uncertainties caused by feckless public policies.
I love Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose.” In that film series over and over it is shown that the ability to move from poor to rich is more abundant here than any other country in the world. This article below reminded me of that that.
A version of this column appeared originally in THE DAILY BEAST.
Do proposed cuts in federal programs threaten to deny the downtrodden any chance for “a meaningful and productive life,” as claimed by one of the most prominent progressives in Congress?
The question is preposterous and the answer is obvious: long before Washington created such programs, millions of underprivileged citizens found ways to climb out of poverty and to build decent homes and brighter futures for their families.
But the office of Representative Andre Carson of Indiana issued a statement insisting that the “Tea Party agenda jeopardizes our most vulnerable and leaves them without the ability to improve their economic standing.” Jason Tomcsi, Carson’s official spokesman, made these claims in an e-mail to the press, attempting to explain previous remarks in which the Congressman told an approving crowd in Miami at a Congressional Black Caucus event that “some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me hanging on a tree.”
This outrageous accusation led Representative Alan West of Florida, one of two African-American Republicans in the House, to threaten to remove himself from the Congressional Black Caucus.
But while Carson’s office refused to apologize and stood behind the admittedly “strong language” in the charges of murderous Tea Party racism, their defense actually compounded the problem by insulting not just conservative activists, but smearing every American who receives federal assistance. To suggest that budget cuts would leave them “without the ability to improve their economic standing” suggests that recipients of government aid aren’t just “vulnerable” but helpless.
According to the official explanation, Carson’s “hanging on a tree” comment came “in response to frustration voiced by many in Miami and in his home district in Indianapolis regarding Congress’s inability to bolster the economy.”
Leaving aside the questionable notion that our political and economic system actually allows Congress to “bolster the economy”, the statement entered even more dubious territory by declaring: “We are talking about child nutrition, job creation, job training, housing assistance and Head Start, and this is just the beginning. A child without basic nutrition, secure housing, and quality education has no real chance at a meaningful and productive life.”
In other words, the many children who currently lack these advantages (despite lavish federal funding for programs meant to provide them) might as well give up, not only abandoning efforts to compete with kids from more fortunate backgrounds, but also renouncing all hopes for a life worth living.
Fortunately, Carson’s own grandmother – the late Congresswoman Julia Carson – never accepted that message. Born in Kentucky in 1938, long before the Civil Rights revolution or the costly Great Society programs her grandson now defends, she worked her way up to a job as a secretary in a union office, and then won a position in the Indiana Legislature.
My own grandfather, Harry Medved, had less success in the US after his 1910 immigration from Ukraine. He worked as a barrel-maker his entire life but somehow managed to raise a son (my father) who made his way through college and graduate school. My grandparents (who I remember vividly) would have laughed at the notion that they depended on generous funding from governmental bureaucracies for the chance they seized to create a “meaningful and productive life.”
On most occasions when Democrats and Republicans fight over the value of federal anti-poverty efforts they argue about the effectiveness of these programs. Many conservatives believe that these well-intentioned initiatives often do more damage than good because they foster a sense of dependence and discourage individual initiative and accountability, while most liberals insist that government plays a useful role in assisting the poor. But Carson’s statement suggesting that disadvantaged families are hopeless and helpless without Washington’s sustaining, life-giving hand–that they can’t possibly move ahead on their own without federal intervention–conveys a dismissive view of the poor that might be considered racist and bigoted had it come from a white conservative.
Moreover, the wildly exaggerated view of government’s power to transform lives, and the sad contention that the impoverished can’t possibly change their circumstances with any other form of aid, combine to illustrate the profound truth in an observation by best-selling author and radio host, Rabbi Daniel Lapin. “The Democratic Party is filled with ardent idealists who have decided to worship the little g – government – and feel uncomfortable with any worship of the big G – God.”
Though Congressman Carson presents himself as a devout Muslim, his recent comments leave no doubt as to which “g” inspires his deepest faith and most fervent prayers.
Michael Medved
Michael Medved’s daily syndicated radio talk show reaches one of the largest national audiences every weekday between 3 and 6 PM, Eastern Time. Michael Medved is the author of eleven books, including the bestsellers What Really Happened to the Class of ’65?, Hollywood vs. America, Right Turns, The Ten Big Lies About America and 5 Big Lies About American Business
Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s jobs speech delivered to a joint session of Congress. Here are some of their immediate reactions:
The Absurdity of Obama’s Spending Offsets
It is absurd that this President — who ignored the recommendations of his own fiscal commission, and then sought to raise the debt ceiling without a nickel of spending reductions — now demands the super-committee created in the debt-ceiling negotiations to come up with additional savings to pay for his jobs proposal.?? ?
– Patrick Knudsen
And When, the Rest of the Story, Mr. President?
In giving his big jobs speech this evening before a rare Joint Session of Congress, also gave us a classic “Paul Harvey” moment.
Paul Harvey was a famous radio commentator and personality with one of the longest running national radio programs in history. His trademark was to tell the audience the big lead into a big story and then break for a commercial. When he came back he would then announce, “And now, (pause) the rest of the story”. We’re still waiting for Barack Obama to give us the rest of the story.
In his jobs speech, the President laid out a bunch of retread policy ideas that two years after they were first tried managed to create an arithmetic novelty – exactly zero job growth in August. In total, the President is calling for more new spending on proven policies that are proven failures, and he says these will all be paid for with budget reductions elsewhere.
But he refused to give his proposals for offsetting the cost of his proposals. Desserts only, no spinach?. We’re still waiting for “the rest of the story”. Was he unable to decide in time on what to propose? Did he think perhaps no one would notice? Why put out what is literally a half-baked plan?
– J.D. Foster
Rising Deficits Drive U.S. Debt Limit Higher, Faster
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.
Congress first placed a statutory limit on total federal debt in 1917, in the Second Liberty Bond Act. Since 1962, Congress has altered the debt limit through 74 separate measures, raising it 10 times since 2001. Since 1990, the debt limit has been raised a total of $10.1 trillion, but nearly half of that increase has occurred since September 2007.
U.S. DEBT LIMIT
Download
Source: Congressional Research Service and White House Office of Management and Budget (Table 7.3, Historical Tables).
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
I thought what we did here in Arkansas was the best until I looked around and found this story out of Tennessee. I am glad that so much effort was given to recognize our soldiers and their service at all the games throughout the SEC this week. I know at the Arkansas game several soldiers were recognized.
Former Vol football player Patrick Lenoir carries an American flag in honor of his brother who was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks as he runs through the “T” with the football team at Neyland Stadium Saturday, Sept. 10, 2011. (AMY SMOTHERMAN BURGESS)
KNOXVILLE — For 10 years Patrick Lenoir couldn’t talk about it. Not a word. Not to newspapers. Not to church counselors. Not to anyone but his closest friends and family.
Early September would roll around, another somber 9/11 anniversary having arrived, and Lenoir would refuse all requests to discuss his brother Rob, who perished in the World Trade Center’s south tower in New York City that awful Tuesday morning, reportedly attempting to help others to safety.
“It just hurt too much,” Patrick said. “I even went to a grief counseling group at church. When it came my time to say something, I couldn’t do it. I never went back.”
But then the University of Tennessee, where he once played college football, called his Chattanooga home this past week. UT officials wanted him to hold the American flag during Saturday’s national anthem, then carry it through the “T” just before the Cincinnati game.
“I was a little surprised,” Lenoir said during halftime of the Volunteers’ 45-23 rout of the Bearcats. “But I decided to give it a try. I thought it would be a real treat for my family.”
Family. On this day above all days, we are a family of 312 million people strong, all of us deeply touched in one way or another by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Or as Lenoir said, “Everybody in this country was affected. Everybody was hurt. I just had a little more personal experience with it than some.”
But his father, John, had begun to talk to media outlets the last few weeks as the 10th anniversary swiftly approached. Patrick followed suit with The State paper in Columbia, S.C., mostly because that’s where he lived the first time he visited Neyland Stadium in 1982, the year Rob would throw the key block on a Duke kickoff return that would do in the Big Orange.
“I was for Duke that night,” Patrick said. “But then my parents moved to Memphis and I became a Vol.”
So 20 years after he’d last run through the “T” as No. 65 in the UT game program, nine years and 364 days after one of the two worst days in this nation’s history and the worst day of the Lenoir family’s life, here came Patrick running down the middle of Neyland Stadium’s perfect grass field, the Stars and Stripes held high, 94,207 roaring their approval.
“I was pumped in the locker room,” he said. “It was just like 20 years ago. I was slapping helmets, telling guys to go get ’em. They probably thought, ‘Who the heck is this guy?'”
In truth, they all knew who he was.
“That meant a lot,” said senior linebacker Austin Johnson. “That day is a tragic day for all of us, but just seeing him, seeing everybody come together, is a great sign.”
Patrick was the last Lenoir to quit looking for some sign that his brother would return home 10 years ago to his wife and children.
“I think my dad knew right away,” said Patrick, who has yet to visit Ground Zero. “I held on for two or three days. I just kept telling everybody that Rob was out there somewhere, that his cell phone just wouldn’t work, that he’d call one of us any minute.”
Instead, every year at this time, “The television channels all run videos of the planes hitting the building. I never get to let it go.”
But something different happened this year. Perhaps it was the gentle, comforting love of his wife, the former Kristy Dobson, who once starred for the UT volleyball team.
Maybe it was strong encouragement from his close friend Andy Kelly, the former UT quarterback for whom Lenoir once blocked.
Perhaps it was the endless support of his Chattanooga friends, the ones who phoned and sent food all those years ago, or the ones he didn’t even know who “wrote three- and four-page letters of support.”
Maybe it was the hugs of his three children: sons Jackson and Bailey, who caught two touchdown passes Friday night for East Hamilton, and daughter Emma.
Perhaps it was even the May killing of Osama bin Laden, the evil mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
“That was special,” Patrick said. “You’re crazy if you think that will stop terrorism. But, hopefully, the world will be more peaceful now.”
Or maybe, hopefully, the passage of 10 years finally has brought some peace to the entire Lenoir family and all those other families whose lives were torn apart that awful Tuesday morning.
Perhaps to that end, when asked how he intended to spend anniversary No. 10, Lenoir said, “I’ve never actually been to a 9/11 service, but I’m going to go tomorrow.”
In last week’s campaign speech disguised as an address to Congress, President Obama said, “Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary — an outrage he has asked us to fix.”
Writing recently in The New York Times, the famed chairman of Berkshire Hathaway complained that his federal income tax last year was “only 17.4% of my taxable income” — less than $7 million on a taxable income of about $40 million.
Buffett claimed that, like himself, other “mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earnings,” but that is not at all common. The average income-tax rate of those earning between $1 million and $10 million was 29.5% in 2009.
Obama used Buffett’s uniquely low 17.4% tax as proof that “a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.” That is not true.
To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous.
Anyone whose income is almost entirely composed of realized capital gains or dividends would “pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earning.” Investors with modest incomes also pay a tax rate of 15% on dividends and capital gains, although that rate is scheduled to rise to 18.8% under the Obama health law (and much higher if Congress enacted the “reforms” Obama will propose next Monday).
Before 2003, when the tax on dividends was made the same as the tax on capital gains, Berkshire Hathaway was a handy tax dodge — a way to own dividend-paying stocks without paying taxes on the dividends. Buffett is famous for collecting stocks with a generous dividend yield without Berkshire itself paying any dividend.
The dividends Berkshire receives are reinvested in buying more stocks, so the holding company ends up with more assets per share which results in capital gains that would be taxable only if the shares are sold.
Warren Buffett is the second wealthiest person in America, but he reports surprisingly little taxable income for someone who owns more than $50 billion of Berkshire shares. Increasing the tax rate on salaries and interest income would barely affect him.
He pays himself a salary of just $100,000, which explains how he pays less than his employees do in payroll taxes. He dodged the estate tax by donating his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He doubtless reduces his taxable income with other donations to charity, which explains why he repeatedly refers to taxable income rather than adjusted gross income.
Mr. Buffett ends by appointing himself tax czar and declares he “would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more … (he) would suggest an additional increase in rate.”
Since he only reports $100,000 of salary, he has nothing to lose by advocating a higher tax rate on salaries. Nearly all of his income in 2010 consisted of capital gains on sales of Berkshire shares, because those shares pay no dividends. But Buffett could just as easily hang onto appreciated shares rather than selling them, or he could donate them to charity.
Raising tax rates on dividends and capital gains sounds easier than it is. Nobody with substantial wealth can be forced to realize taxable gains by selling appreciated assets. A realized gain is no more valuable than an unrealized gain. On the contrary, it is less valuable by the amount of the tax.
Nobody can be forced to hold dividend-paying stocks either. They can instead buy Berkshire Hathaway shares if the tax on dividends goes up, as Buffett understands.
Despite his personal and professional dependence on capital gains, Buffett nevertheless feigns total ignorance of who pays the capital gains tax and why. He says, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9% in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.”
Well, the Dow Jones industrial average was 831 at the end of 1977 — down from 969 at the end of 1965 — so somebody was having trouble finding investments that would still look sensible after paying a 39.9% tax.
In any case, for Buffett to focus on the act of buying stocks or property is all wrong. The capital gains tax is not a tax on buying assets. It is a tax on selling assets. If you don’t sell, there is no tax. And when the capital gains tax is high, very few people are willing to sell.
In 1977, when the capital gains tax was 39.9%, realized gains amounted to less than 1.57% of GDP. From 1987 to 1996, when the capital gains tax was 28%, realized gains rose to 2.3% of GDP. Since 28% of 2.3 is larger than 39.9% of 1.57, the lower tax rate clearly raised more tax revenue.
From 2004 to 2007, when the capital gains tax was 15%, realized gains amounted to 5.2% of GDP. Since 15% of 5.2 is larger than 28% of 2.3, the lower tax rate again raised more tax revenue. The government cannot afford to raise this tax, particularly on those most likely to pay it.
Buffett focuses on the 400 tax returns with the highest reported incomes, which are often one-time capital gains from the sale of a business or real estate.
“In 1992,” he writes, “the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2% on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5%.”
In 1992 only 39% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because those tax rates were so high. With most reported income coming from salaries, the average tax rate was high.
By 2008, 67% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because both were taxed at 15%. That diluted the average tax rate, yet nevertheless resulted in much more taxes paid because the amount of reported income was so much larger.
The big change was not in actual income, but merely in what the IRS counts as income. People were hiding more of their wealth in 1992 than they did in 2006-2008, and they were hiding even more in 1977.
It is easy to advocate a higher tax rate on capital gains, but it is even easier to avoid paying that higher tax rate. Simply hold onto assets that went up and sell those that went down, and never realize gains until you have offsetting losses.
The evidence is undeniable that affluent investors and property owners report far fewer gains whenever the capital gains tax goes up. Choosing to pay tax on capital gains and dividends is usually voluntary, and when the rate gets too high we run short of volunteers.
With the super-high 1977 tax rates of 39.9% on capital gains and 70% on dividends and salaries, federal revenues were 18% of GDP. In 1992, revenues were only 17.5% of GDP. In 2007, thanks in large part to a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, revenues were 18.5% of GDP.
To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous. It didn’t work then, and it wouldn’t work now.
A video by CF&P Foundation that builds on the discussion of theory in Part I and evidence in Part II, this concluding video in the series on the Laffer Curve explains how the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue-estimating process is based on the absurd theory that changes in tax policy – even dramatic reforms such as a flat tax – do not effect economic growth. In other words, the current system assumes the Laffer Curve does not exist. Because of congressional budget rules, this leads to a bias for tax increases and against tax cuts. The video explains that “static scoring” should be replaced with “dynamic scoring” so that lawmakers will have more accurate information when making decisions about tax policy. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org.
Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).
On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.
As Congress considers what to do about federal overspending and overborrowing, conservatives must maintain focus. We must pursue the path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget, while preserving our ability to protect America and without raising taxes. An important part of that conservative agenda is adoption of a sound—repeat, a sound—Balanced Budget Amendment.[1] A Balanced Budget Amendment is not sound if it leads to balancing the federal budget by tax hikes instead of spending cuts. Thus, a sound Balanced Budget Amendment must prohibit raising taxes unless a two-thirds majority of the membership of both Houses of Congress votes to raise them. Without the two-thirds majority requirement, the Balanced Budget Amendment becomes the means for big spenders to raise taxes.
Supporters of the Balanced Budget Amendment rightly want to force the federal government to live within its means—to spend no more than it takes in. Because the government has failed for decades to follow that balanced budget principle, America is now $14.294 trillion in debt, a debt of more than $45,000 for every person in the United States.[2]
President Obama is making things worse. In discussions with congressional leaders, he has pushed hard to get authority to borrow yet more trillions of dollars and hike taxes. And the White House reiterated this week that President Obama opposes amending the Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget.[3]
A Sound Balanced Budget Amendment Must Require Two-Thirds Majorities to Raise Federal Taxes
Like 72 percent of the American people, The Heritage Foundation favors passage by the requisite two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and ratification by the requisite 38 states of an effective Balanced Budget Amendment to become part of our Constitution.[4] Heritage has made clear that an effective Balanced Budget Amendment must control spending, taxation, and borrowing; ensure the defense of America; and enforce, through the legislative process and without interference by the judicial branch, the requirement to balance the budget.[5] A sound Balanced Budget Amendment will drive down federal spending and end federal borrowing.
To date, Congress has proposed one largely sound Balanced Budget Amendment for consideration—Senate Joint Resolution 10, often called the Hatch-Lee Amendment after its main proponents.[6] It has a number of important features, such as an annual federal spending cap of not to exceed 18 percent of the economy’s annual output of goods and services (called the gross domestic product, or GDP) that Congress cannot exceed, except by a law passed with two-thirds majorities in both Houses of Congress or in specified circumstances involving military necessity.
A crucial feature is included in section 4 of the Balanced Budget Amendment proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 10: “Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.” The requirement that no tax hikes occur without the approval of 290 Representatives and 67 Senators is essential in a sound Balanced Budget Amendment. Without the requirement for two-thirds majorities for any tax increase, the Balanced Budget Amendment becomes a sword for big spenders to use to raise taxes, instead of a shield to protect Americans from tax hikes. Those who seek to anchor into our Constitution a requirement to balance the budget must always remember that, if the only requirement is “balance,” that can be achieved two ways—cut spending or hike taxes. A sound Balanced Budget Amendment will balance the budget by driving down federal spending and not by driving up federal taxes.
Balanced-Budget States That Allow Simple Majorities for Tax Hikes Face Situations Very Different from That of the Federal Government
Some look at the experience of states that have requirements in their constitutions for a balanced state budget and draw the wrong conclusion about the need for two-thirds majorities for taxation. They mistakenly conclude that a requirement merely for simple majorities in state legislatures to raise taxes suffices to keep state taxation under control and therefore that a federal Balanced Budget Amendment should require only simple majorities in Congress to raise taxes. But the balanced budget requirement at the state level occurs in a very different context from such a requirement at the federal level.
As a practical matter, state legislators regularly work and live among the people they represent, often do their legislative work face-to-face with their constituents, and often depend upon direct contact with voters to persuade voters to keep the legislators in office. As a result, state legislators tend to be closely attuned and responsive to the need of their constituents for reasonableness in taxation. In contrast, U.S. Senators and Representatives spend much of their time distant from the people they represent, often deal with their constituents through the insulation of large staffs, and amass large campaign funds through political fundraising that allow them to depend more upon expensive mass communications than upon direct contact with voters to persuade the voters to keep them in office. As a result, U.S. Senators and Representatives tend to be less directly attuned and responsive to the need of their constituents for reasonableness in taxation than state legislators are. Accordingly, while a requirement for merely simple majorities in state legislatures to raise taxes may suffice to keep taxes under control in that state, simple majorities are not likely to keep taxes under control at the federal level—as the experience of federal tax increases in the last 50 years proves.
Some who recognize the need for taxpayer protection by requiring supermajorities, rather than just simple majorities, of the two Houses of Congress to raise taxes think a supermajority of three-fifths of both Houses would suffice. While three-fifths would add a modicum of taxpayer protection in the House, three-fifths would add little if anything in the way of taxpayer protection in the Senate, which already often requires a three-fifths majority to proceed to consideration of legislation. The existing three-fifths rule in the Senate has often failed to protect taxpayers from federal tax increases in the past. A sound Balanced Budget Amendment would add protection for taxpayers in both Houses of Congress by a requirement for two-thirds majorities of the membership of both Houses to raise taxes.
Conclusion: Adopt the Two-Thirds Majority Requirement for Tax Hikes, to Make the Balanced Budget Amendment the Instrument of Spending Cuts and Not Tax Hikes
America’s soon-to-be New Minority—people who pay federal income tax—need protection from unreasonable taxation.[7] When all Americans have the right to vote, but only a minority has the duty to pay the federal income taxes from which all Americans benefit, the risk is high that a non-taxpaying majority will elect a Congress pledged to adopt taxation that oppresses the taxpaying minority. The impulse to seek something for nothing has regrettably taken root in the American body politic in the past century. The requirement in the Balanced Budget Amendment of a two-thirds majority of the membership of both Houses of Congress to raise taxes will protect a taxpaying minority against oppressive taxation.
As Congress continues on the path toward adopting a joint resolution to recommend a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification, Congress should ensure that the Amendment includes a requirement for approval by two-thirds of the membership of the two Houses of Congress for tax hikes. Absent such a requirement, the Balanced Budget Amendment will encourage tax hikes instead of spending cuts as the means to balance the budget, making the Amendment the friend of the tax, spend and borrow crowd, instead of the friend of those who believe in limited government, free enterprise, and individual freedom.
Edwin Meese III is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Edwin Meese III is a prominent leader, thinker and elder statesman in the conservative movement – and America itself.
Meese holds the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he is responsible for keeping the late president’s legacy of conservative principles alive in public debate and discourse.
He also is Chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, founded in 2001 to educate government officials, the media and the public about the Constitution, legal principles and how they affect public policy.
These two Heritage “hats” keep Meese, a trusted counselor to Reagan before becoming Attorney General, among the major conservative voices in national policy debates at an age when most men and women enjoy quiet retirements.
In 2006, for example, Meese was named to the Iraq Study Group, a special presidential commission dedicated to examining the best resolutions for America’s involvement in Iraq.
Immediately after Reagan’s death in 2004, and in the years since, Meese appeared on the major cable and broadcast news programs to discuss the lasting impact of his old friend, mentor and boss. He often summarizes the Reagan legacy in three accomplishments: 1) Reagan cut taxes and kept them low. 2) He worked to defeat and end the Soviet Union and its worldwide push for communism. 3) He restored America’s faith in itself after years of failure and “malaise.”
“I admired him as a leader and cherish his friendship,” Meese wrote in a 2004 essay for Heritage members and supporters. “Ronald Reagan had strong convictions. He was committed to the principles that had led to the founding of our nation. And he had the courage to follow his convictions against all odds.”
Meese spent much of his adult life working for Reagan, first after the former actor, sports announcer and athlete was elected Governor of California in 1966 and then when he sought and won the presidency in 1980.
Meese served as the 75th Attorney General of the United States from February 1985 to August 1988. As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, he directed the Justice Department and led international efforts to combat terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime.
From January 1981 to February 1985, Meese held the position of Counsellor to the President – the senior job on the White House staff – and functioned as Reagan’s chief policy adviser. In 1985, he received Government Executive magazine’s annual award for excellence in management.
Meese joined Heritage in 1988 as the think tank’s first Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow – the only policy chair in the country to be officially named for the 40th president.
His relationship with Heritage began eight years earlier, however, when Meese met with senior management to discuss the think tank’s landmark policy guide, Mandate for Leadership, prepared for the incoming administration. Meese later recalled that Reagan personally handed out copies of the 1,093-page book to members of his Cabinet and asked them to read it. Nearly two-thirds of Mandate’s 2,000 recommendations would be adopted or attempted by the Reagan Administration.
Meese took on a new role as Chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies more than a decade after joining the think tank. Under his guidance, the center has counseled White House staffers, Justice Department officials and Senate Judiciary Committee members on the importance of filling judicial vacancies with qualified men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to the founding document’s original meaning.
The center also became known for hosting “moot court” practice sessions to sharpen the arguments of attorneys slated to bring important cases before the Supreme Court. Those cases addressed constitutional issues ranging from property rights to racial preferences in primary and secondary schools to restrictions on free speech in campaign finance law.
Meese headed the center’s Advisory Board for the writing and editing of the best-selling book, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Regnery, 2005). The book assembles 109 experts to walk readers through a clause-by-clause analysis of the Constitution. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was among those keeping the reference work handy during Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominees.
Meese’s other books include Leadership, Ethics and Policing (Prentice Hall, 2004); Making America Safer (Heritage, 1997); and With Reagan: The Inside Story (Regnery Gateway, 1992).
He also is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California and lectures, writes and consults throughout the United States on a variety of subjects.
As both Attorney General and Counsellor to President Reagan, Meese was a member of the Cabinet and the National Security Council. He also served as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Council and the National Drug Policy Board.
After Reagan won the White House in the 1980 election, Meese headed the transition team. In the campaign, he was the Reagan-Bush Committee’s senior official.
During the Reagan governorship, Meese served as Executive Assistant and Chief of Staff from 1969 through 1974 and as Legal Affairs Secretary from 1967 through 1968. He previously was Deputy District Attorney in Alameda County, Calif.
Reagan never forgot Meese’s loyalty and hard work over the years. During a press conference at which reporters questioned Meese’s actions at the Justice Department, Reagan replied: “If Ed Meese is not a good man, there are no good men.”
Meese had a career outside government and politics. From 1977 to 1981, he was a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, where he also directed the Center for Criminal Justice Policy and Management.
He was an executive in the aerospace and transportation industry as Vice President for Administration of Rohr Industries Inc. in Chula Vista, Calif. He left Rohr to return to the practice of law, doing corporate and general work in San Diego County.
Edwin Meese III was born Dec. 2, 1931, to Edwin Jr. and Leone Meese in Oakland, Calif. He graduated from Yale University in 1953 and holds a law degree from the University of California-Berkeley. A retired Colonel in the Army Reserve, he remains active in numerous civic and educational organizations.
He and his wife, Ursula, have two grown children and reside in McLean, Va.
President Obama’s job speech reacted to by Heritage Foundation scholars (Part 3)
I love going to the Heritage Foundation website because of articles like this:
Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s jobs speech delivered to a joint session of Congress. Here are some of their immediate reactions:
The Absurdity of Obama’s Spending Offsets
It is absurd that this President — who ignored the recommendations of his own fiscal commission, and then sought to raise the debt ceiling without a nickel of spending reductions — now demands the super-committee created in the debt-ceiling negotiations to come up with additional savings to pay for his jobs proposal.?? ?
– Patrick Knudsen
And When, the Rest of the Story, Mr. President?
In giving his big jobs speech this evening before a rare Joint Session of Congress, also gave us a classic “Paul Harvey” moment.
Paul Harvey was a famous radio commentator and personality with one of the longest running national radio programs in history. His trademark was to tell the audience the big lead into a big story and then break for a commercial. When he came back he would then announce, “And now, (pause) the rest of the story”. We’re still waiting for Barack Obama to give us the rest of the story.
In his jobs speech, the President laid out a bunch of retread policy ideas that two years after they were first tried managed to create an arithmetic novelty – exactly zero job growth in August. In total, the President is calling for more new spending on proven policies that are proven failures, and he says these will all be paid for with budget reductions elsewhere.
But he refused to give his proposals for offsetting the cost of his proposals. Desserts only, no spinach?. We’re still waiting for “the rest of the story”. Was he unable to decide in time on what to propose? Did he think perhaps no one would notice? Why put out what is literally a half-baked plan?
– J.D. Foster
Rising Deficits Drive U.S. Debt Limit Higher, Faster
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.
Congress first placed a statutory limit on total federal debt in 1917, in the Second Liberty Bond Act. Since 1962, Congress has altered the debt limit through 74 separate measures, raising it 10 times since 2001. Since 1990, the debt limit has been raised a total of $10.1 trillion, but nearly half of that increase has occurred since September 2007.
U.S. DEBT LIMIT
Chart 26 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
Tagged http www youtube, joint session of congress, national radio programs, radio commentator. |