-
Recent Posts
- FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Dan Mitchell: Milton Friedman was advocating what is sometimes referred to as “shareholder capitalism,” which is the notion that a company should strive to earn honest profits for its owners!
- FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 557 My March 13, 2016 Letter to Hugh Hefner with quote from Ben Parkinson: There are only two things worth putting your time and life into and that is the WORD OF GOD and the SOULS OF PEOPLE. (Featured artist is Debo Eilers)
- FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 556 Third letter I wrote to HUGH HEFNER (Where do we get our morals from?) Featured Artist is Stephanie Syjuco
- FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 555 LETTER TO HUGH HEFNER “What does it all mean — if it has any meaning at all? But how can it all exist if it doesn’t have some kind of meaning?” Featured Artist is Assume Vivid Astro Focus
- FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 554 My Correspondence with Edward O.Wilson from 1994 to 2021 My 4/21/17 letter to Dr.Wilson I quoted Francis Schaeffer: “Ecclesiastes is the only pessimistic book in the Bible and that is because of the place where Solomon limits himself.He limits himself to the question of human life, life UNDER THE SUN between birth and death and the answers this would give” FEATURED ARTIST IS DALÍ
-
Recent Comments
-
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
-
Categories
- Adrian Rogers
- Atheists Confronted
- Biblical Archaeology
- Bill Clinton
- Capital Punishment
- Cato Institute
- Current Events
- David Barton
- Economist Dan Mitchell
- Famous Arkansans
- Founding Fathers
- Francis Schaeffer
- Gun Control
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Jason Tolbert
- Mike Huckabee
- Milton Friedman
- President Donald J. Trump
- President Donald Trump
- President Obama
- Prolife
- Ronald Reagan
- Social Security
- spending out of control
- Taxes
- Uncategorized
- Unconfirmed Quotes of Founders
- Vouchers
- War Heroes
- Woody Allen
-
Meta
Chuck Colson: True Christians renounce violence and promote human freedom
Today there is a big debate caused by the tragic events in Norway where an extremist associated with a Christian group that opposed multiculturalism has killed over 90 people.
In the article below Chuck Colson noted, “True Christians renounce violence and promote human freedom, which is why the major human-rights movements of the past centuries were inspired by and fueled by Christianity.” That is why I believe it is clear that the terrorist in Norway was not a true Christian. The Bible does not teach jihad.
| Wars of Religion? |
The ‘Economist’ Gets It WrongBy Chuck Colson|Published Date: November 28, 2007
|
The magazine’s emphasis on religion represents a nearly 180-degree turn from the publication’s 1999 declaration that belief in God had “passed into history.” But while the magazine is looking in the right direction, it does not understand what it is seeing.
The graphic accompanying the story could not be less subtle: an arm reaching down from heaven holding a hand grenade. According to the story, “faith will unsettle politics everywhere this century; it will do so least when it is separated from the state.”
We are not even into the story, and there is already a problem: There is a world of difference between mixing faith with politics and the kind of violence suggested by the hand-grenade graphic.
Even if you think that faith and politics should be completely separate, it is absurd to equate—as theEconomist does—the actions of American Christians with those of al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood. The article unintentionally exposes this absurdity: The only mention in the article of a Christian resorting to political violence was the Gunpowder Plot of 1605! Even there, calling Guy Fawkes a “Catholic Jihadist” is a bit of a stretch—a desperate attempt to draw a moral equivalency where none exists.
That’s because it has been 400 years since Christians settled religious disputes with explosives. (No, Northern Ireland, you may be thinking, but that was political.) Yet Islamic, and even Hindu, uses of political violence make headlines nearly every day.
Clearly, this is the case in the two countries the magazine spotlights: Nigeria and India. In Nigeria, when Muslim-majority states in the North adopted sharia law, the Christians faced possible flogging and mutilation, as well as restrictions on practicing their faith.
The adoption of the sharia law was followed by attacks on Christian neighborhoods and businesses. While it is true that some Christians fought back, that does not change the fact that in almost all cases Muslims initiated the violence.
In India, Hindu nationalists use their political power to oppress Muslims and Christians. Two thousand Muslims were killed in anti-Muslim riots five years ago.
It is simply grotesque to compare Hindu nationalists, as the Economist does, to Focus on the Family and my friend Jim Dobson—almost as grotesque to lump Christian efforts at social reform with the imposition of sharia law.
The Economist is still looking through a lens distorted by secularism. Maybe we cannot blame it, because so much today in our politically correct culture tells us that all religions are alike: All that matters is that we worship God, and we worship the same god. When I criticize Muslims, I have often been attacked.
We need to lovingly make the case to our neighbors that all religions are not alike. True Christians renounce violence and promote human freedom, which is why the major human-rights movements of the past centuries were inspired by and fueled by Christianity.
We cannot expect our critics to get it right, but we can teach our secular friends. I have done this from time to time and watched their attitudes dramatically change. We have a great case—all we have to do is make it, and let people know that worldviews do matter.
Do Christians or Muslims commit more acts of terror?

Today the world has learned that yesterday’s tragic events in Norway where over 90 individuals were killed, was NOT THE ACT OF A MUSLIM AS EARLIER REPORTED. Actually now it seems that this person may have been a member of an extremist Christian group that opposed multiculturalism. At least that is the information that we are getting now. This has prompted people on the Arkansas Times Blog to ask for Christian leaders to apologize. However, it is my view that Christianity is truly a religion of peace and that Islam does have a large element in their group that hold to principles of jihad. What is the results of the last few decades? Why not examine the list of terror acts? Here it is below taken from wikipedia.
Terrorist attacks
See also: List of terrorist incidents and List of assassins
[edit]
Brummett: Congress abdicates political responsibility to make wise cuts, but we don’t need balanced budget amendment (Part 6)
Senator Conrad calls Balanced Budget Amendment is laughable, but I think it is laughable when you look at the lack of resolve of Congress to make the necessary cuts!!!
John Brummett in his article “It may get personal in debt-limit end game,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 19, 2011 noted:
The White House is quietly encouraging the Reid-McConnell talks.
Meantime, there is talk of pandering to the tea party radicals in the unwieldy House by letting them pursue referral of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
Ratification would take years. If enacted, such an amendment would amount to the same abdication of political responsibility to make wise and responsible cuts in spending as has been evident in the debt-ceiling debate.
It is obvious to me that the Balanced Budget Amendment is needed because of the “abdication of political responsibility to make wise and responsible cuts in spending” that Brummett is talking about and we have all seen for decades.
The real debate in my view should be which variety of amendment should we pass. This is a series of posts I am doing on that subject. They come from Brian Darling’s excellent article, ” The House and Senate Balanced Budget Amendments: Not All Balanced Budget Amendments Are Created Equal,” Heritage Foundation, July 14, 2011.
Abstract: Republicans in the House and Senate have announced that they will force votes on balanced budget constitutional amendments. While the Senate and House versions of the current BBA are similar, there are some important differences that Members of Congress and the American people need to understand. For example, the Senate version makes it more difficult to enact revenue-neutral tax reform, while the House version would waive its tax limitation in times of military conflict. How Congress resolves these differences could determine whether future Congresses and Presidents balance the budget without increasing taxes.
Conclusion
These proposed balanced budget amendments differ on some fundamental issues that would dramatically affect the way Congress attempts to balance the budget. The House version, for example, is easier to waive. There is a lower threshold to declare military conflict in the House version that would allow for an easier waiver. Also, the tax limitation—forcing a two-thirds vote to increase taxes—would be waived in times of military conflict in the House version. The House version allows a lower supermajority threshold to pass an unbalanced budget than the Senate version does.
The Senate version makes it more difficult to enact revenue-neutral tax reform. The provision that forces a two-thirds vote to raise any tax would make it more difficult to modify the tax code in a revenue-neutral manner to implement a flat tax. For a flat tax to work, some Americans might have their tax rates increased as a means to make every American pay the same rate.
Also, neither version contains the complete ban on judicial enforcement that is necessary to prevent activist judges from setting budget priorities, which is a job reserved for the political branches of government.
The differences between the House and Senate BBAs may seem small to those who are not steeped in the budget process, but they will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Americans. Ultimately, these differences would need to be reconciled in a manner that leads to a balanced budget without jeopardizing U.S. military interests or punishing taxpayers.
“Midnight in Paris” movie review
Hemingway talks about the fear of death in the latest Woody Allen film “Midnight in Paris.” This is one of Allen’s themes that visits often in his films.
This is the Golden Age; “Midnight in Paris” is effortlessly lovely
Volume 16, Issue 34
June 14, 2010
The CNM Chronicle gives “Midnight in Paris” 4.3-of-5 stars
Woody Allen’s 45th directed film “Midnight in Paris” is aesthetically appealing, whimsical, and harkens a respect for the past in a world society that perpetually looks to the future.
“Midnight in Paris” (Which was written and directed by Allen) stars Owen Wilson as Gil Bender on vacation with his fiancée Inez, played by Rachel McAdams.
The movie begins with a series of shots of Paris landmarks, some in regular weather and some in rain, synched to change shots along with the upbeat in the score. Like other Allen movies, the first dialog is heard from Gil against the black title credits which progress to reveal Inez and Gil walking through Monet’s Garden in Giverny.
Throughout the early daylight scenes of “Midnight in Paris,” Gil and Inez walk through a series of landmarks. Gil, an American television writer working on his first novel, professes his love of the city of Paris, how the people operate and his desire to live, write there while Inez cannot wait to return stateside.
Gil and Inez are in Paris along with Inez’s parents John, played by Kurt Fuller, and Helen, played by Mimi Kennedy, who are in town on a business venture for John. Along the way Gil and Inez meet up with Inez’s Gil-termed “Pedantic” friend Paul played by Michael Sheen and Carol played by Nina Arianda.
Paul invites Gil and Inez along with he and Carol to tour Rodin’s museum where Paul proceeds to give a tour to an attentive Inez and Carol, and an unwilling Gil.
There is a shot in front of Rodin’s museum where the two women follow Paul with a rapt focus while Gil follows as if he becomes more uninterested and annoyed at Paul with each step he takes. It’s in a scene like this where Wilson shines playing the Allen surrogate role of Gil. While Wilson may not appear as cynical or sharp as Allen would in the role, there is a believable mocking quality to the way Wilson plays the character.
After a day of listening to Paul bemoan about the history of Paris and the various works of art that contribute to the city’s prestige, Gil excuses himself to walk around the city. Eventually Gil finds himself lost on the streets of Paris, and sits on a city street stairway in the Latin Quarter. As the clock strikes midnight a Duisenberg strolls up to where he is sitting and the inhabitants of the car invite him to come along.
After Gil gets out of the car, he finds himself in the 1920’s France world of Cole Porter (played by Yves Heck) music, late-night parties and stimulating conversation. Eventually, he finds himself talking to Zelda (played by Alison Pill) and Scott Fitzgerald (played by Tom Hiddleston) and joining them in escaping the boring party in which they go to a bar where they meet up with Ernest Hemmingway (played by Corey Stroll).
Throughout the process Gil is entranced by each author or artist he meets. After asking Hemmingway to read his novel-in-progress, Hemmingway declines but promises to bring him to the only person he trusts with his work, Gertrude Stein (played by Kathy Bates).
During the next day Gil tells Inez about his night and she devalues everything he says. Throughout the day the growing disconnect between Gil and Inez becomes more obvious as they argue over where they should live after getting married.
The next night Hemmingway takes Gil to Stein where he is thrust into an argument between her and Pablo Picasso about a painting. The painting was a portrait of a woman, Adriana (played by Marion Cotillard), whom Picasso had been seeing. Gil talks with Adrianna in the next room and they bond over a common bond, a love of the past.
There are many great performances in “Midnight in Paris,” the most notable being any with Hemmingway. Stroll plays an engaging Hemmingway who rivets all he talks to with poignant words and elegant phrases. Throughout the movie Hemmingway delivers bits like “All Cowardice comes from not loving,” and “You will never write well if you fear dying.” But the best bit of Hemmingway in this movie is a conversation between him and Adrianna at a party thrown by the Fitzgerald’s.
Hemmingway says to Adrianna, “Have you ever shot a charging lion?” Adriana responds no and Hemmingway responds with “would you like to?”
Bates is also brilliant as the poetess Stein. She is forceful and abrupt which allows her to motivate Wilson in his writing career.
Cotillard is, as Wilson describes, “Effortlessly Lovely.” The chemistry between Adrianna and Gil is enchanting and propels the movie forward.
Lastly, McAdams is abrasive as Inez which is most likely the point of her character. She constantly puts down Gil which makes her character hard to care about.
The movie has been proclaimed in many critics reviews as a love note to Paris. While each image on screen is beautiful and filmed with the perfect amounts of light, weather and blocking, the content of the movie seems to be more focused on Allen’s post famous career.
Wilson plays a writer trying to find a living where he isn’t a corporate hand making things that are moronic and simplistic. He hates the fact he spends his life ridiculed by pedantic people who have no clue what they are talking about and indoctrinate the naively willing.
What Allen is beckoning for through a love letter to Paris is a return to writing or self-expression before the corporate takeover of the arts realm. In the words of Inez in an early scene, “Midnight in Paris” Is Allen willfully stating that he would give it all up just to struggle.
Brummett: Congress abdicates political responsibility to make wise cuts, but we don’t need balanced budget amendment (Part 5)
Uploaded by afq2007 on Oct 4, 2010
Politicians and interest groups claim higher taxes are necessary because it would be impossible to cut spending by enough to get rid of red ink. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity video shows that these assertions are nonsense. The budget can be balanced very quickly by simply limiting the annual growth of federal spending.
_________________________________
Below in the clip you can see President Reagan asking for a balanced budget amendment back in the 1980’s. How much heartache would we have avoided if we had one back then?
John Brummett in his article “It may get personal in debt-limit end game,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 19, 2011 noted:
The White House is quietly encouraging the Reid-McConnell talks.
Meantime, there is talk of pandering to the tea party radicals in the unwieldy House by letting them pursue referral of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
Ratification would take years. If enacted, such an amendment would amount to the same abdication of political responsibility to make wise and responsible cuts in spending as has been evident in the debt-ceiling debate.
It is obvious to me that the Balanced Budget Amendment is needed because of the “abdication of political responsibility to make wise and responsible cuts in spending” that Brummett is talking about and we have all seen for decades.
The real debate in my view should be which variety of amendment should we pass. This is a series of posts I am doing on that subject. They come from Brian Darling’s excellent article, ” The House and Senate Balanced Budget Amendments: Not All Balanced Budget Amendments Are Created Equal,” Heritage Foundation, July 14, 2011.
Abstract: Republicans in the House and Senate have announced that they will force votes on balanced budget constitutional amendments. While the Senate and House versions of the current BBA are similar, there are some important differences that Members of Congress and the American people need to understand. For example, the Senate version makes it more difficult to enact revenue-neutral tax reform, while the House version would waive its tax limitation in times of military conflict. How Congress resolves these differences could determine whether future Congresses and Presidents balance the budget without increasing taxes.
Enforcing Legislation
The House and Senate versions differ on the authorization for legislation to enforce the BBA. Section 7 of the House version allows Congress to enforce and implement the BBA “by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.” Section 10 of the Senate version, however, allows enforcement “by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.” The Senate’s version specifically references GDP, whereas the House version is silent on this point.
—Brian Darling is Senior Fellow for Government Studies in the Department of Government Studies at The Heritage Foundation
Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 98)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Here are a few more I just emailed to Senator Pryor myself:
Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.
- Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that would save $9 billionannually.
- Taxpayers are funding paintings of high-ranking government officials at a cost of up to $50,000 apiece.
- The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in order to raise state caseload figures and trigger $43 millionin additional federal funds.
- Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in their backyards—subsidies that many of these families never requested and do not want.
- Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods, and $230for a beer brewing kit.
- The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 millionper month to rent a lab that it cannot use.
- Congress recently spent $2.4 billionon 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.
Government spending has got too high in the USA
Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog is very fond of quoting Paul Krugman concerning his view that the worst thing we could do now is cut federal spending. However, federal spending doesn’t work to pull us out of a recession.
Federal Spending Doesn’t Work
by Chris Edwards
Despite ongoing federal deficits of more than $1 trillion a year, many liberals are calling for more government spending to “create jobs.” At the same time, liberals are opposing budget cuts because that would supposedly hurt the economic recovery. And then there is the perennial problem of Democrats and Republicans defending spending on their particular favored programs.
With all these forces arrayed against budget sanity, it’s time to take a back-to-basics look at the role of government spending in the economy.
Federal spending has soared over the past decade. As a share of gross domestic product, spending grew from 18 percent in 2001 to 24 percent in 2011. The causes of this expansion include the costs of wars, growing entitlement programs, the 2009 stimulus bill and rising spending on discretionary programs such as education.
The reality is that Washington is very bad at trying to micromanage short-term economic performance.
New projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that without reforms spending will keep rising for decades to come. The CBO’s “alternative fiscal scenario” shows spending growing to 34 percent of GDP by 2035. Thus, the federal government is on course to gobble up almost twice as much of the U.S. economy 24 years from now as it did just a decade ago.
America is becoming a big-government nation
Sadly, America is rapidly becoming a big-government nation. Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development compares spending by all levels of government among its 31 high-income member countries. This year, government spending in the United States hit 41 percent of GDP, meaning that more than 4 out of every 10 dollars that we produce is consumed by our federal, state and local governments.
We used to have a substantial government size advantage compared to other countries. But Figure 1 shows that while government spending in the United States was about 10 percentage points of GDP smaller than the average OECD country in the past, that gap has now shrunk to just 4 points. A number of high-income nations — such as Australia — now have smaller governments than does the United States.
This is very troubling because America’s strong growth and high living standards were historically built on our relatively small government. The ongoing surge in federal spending is undoing this competitive advantage that we have enjoyed in the world economy.
CBO projections show that federal spending will rise by about 10 percentage points of GDP between now and 2035. If that happens, governments in the United States will be grabbing more than half of everything produced in the nation by that year. That would doom future generations of Americans to unbearable levels of taxation and a stagnant economy with fewer opportunities.
Government spending doesn’t stimulate
There is renewed talk in Washington about further spending measures to try and stimulate the weak economy. That idea is remarkably naïve and misguided. It is now more than two years after passage of the $821 billion stimulus package in 2009, and it is obvious that that effort was a hugely expensive Keynesian policy failure.
The Obama administration’s attempt to pump up “aggregate demand” in the economy simply hasn’t worked. In Keynesian theory, the total amount of deficit spending is the amount of “stimulus” delivered to the economy. Well, we’ve had deficit spending of $459 billion in 2008, $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.4 trillion in 2011.
Yet despite that enormous deficit-spending stimulus, U.S. unemployment remains stuck at more than 9 percent and the recovery is very sluggish compared to prior recoveries. Indeed, the current recovery appears to be slower than any since World War II, according to a recent Joint Economic Committee study.
Obama administration economists had claimed that the Keynesian “multipliers” from government spending are large, meaning that spending would give a big boost to GDP. But other economists have found that Keynesian multipliers are actually quite small, meaning that added government spending mainly just displaces private-sector activities. Stanford University economist John Taylor took a detailed look at GDP data over recent years, and he found little evidence of any benefits from the 2009 stimulus bill. Any “sugar high” to the economy from recent increases in government spending was at best very small and short-lived.
The reality is that Washington is very bad at trying to micromanage short-term economic performance. Its failed stimulus actions have just put the nation further into debt, which will harm our long-term prosperity. Harvard University’s Robert Barro calculated that any short-term benefit that the 2009 stimulus bill may have provided is greatly outweighed by the future damage caused by higher taxes and debt.
The government’s leaky bucket
Let’s take a look at how government spending damages the economy over the long run. Spending is financed by the extraction of resources from current and future taxpayers. The resources consumed by the government cannot be used to produce goods in the private marketplace. For example, the engineers needed to build a $10 billion government high-speed rail line are taken away from building other products in the economy. The $10 billion rail line creates government-connected jobs, but it also kills at least $10 billion worth of private jobs.
Indeed, the private sector would actually lose more than $10 billion in this example. That is because government spending and taxing creates “deadweight losses,” which result from distortions to working, investment and other activities. The CBO says that deadweight loss estimates “range from 20 cents to 60 cents over and above the revenue raised.” Harvard University’s Martin Feldstein thinks that deadweight losses “may exceed one dollar per dollar of revenue raised, making the cost of incremental governmental spending more than two dollars for each dollar of government spending.” Thus, a $10 billion high-speed rail line would cost the private economy $20 billion or more.
The government uses a “leaky bucket” when it tries to help the economy. Former chairman of the Council of Economics Advisors, Michael Boskin, explains: “The cost to the economy of each additional tax dollar is about $1.40 to $1.50. Now that tax dollar … is put into a bucket. Some of it leaks out in overhead, waste and so on. In a well-managed program, the government may spend 80 or 90 cents of that dollar on achieving its goals. Inefficient programs would be much lower, $0.30 or $0.40 on the dollar.” Texas A&M economist Edgar Browning comes to similar conclusions about the magnitude of the government’s leaky bucket: “It costs taxpayers $3 to provide a benefit worth $1 to recipients.”
The larger the government grows, the leakier the bucket becomes. On the revenue side, tax distortions rise rapidly as tax rates rise. On the spending side, funding is allocated to activities with ever lower returns as the government expands. Figure 2 illustrates the consequences of the leaky bucket. On the left-hand side, tax rates are low and the government initially delivers useful public goods such as crime reduction. Those activities create high returns, so per-capita incomes initially rise as the government grows.
As the government expands further, it engages in less productive activities. The marginal return from government spending falls and then turns negative. On the right-hand side of the figure, average incomes fall as the government expands. Government in the United States — at more than 40 percent of GDP — is almost certainly on the right-hand side of this figure.
In his 2008 book, Stealing from Ourselves, Professor Browning concludes that today’s welfare state reduces GDP — or average U.S. incomes — by about 25 percent. That would place us quite far to the right in Figure 2, and it suggests that federal spending cuts would substantially increase U.S. incomes over time.
All the official projections show rivers of red ink for years to come unless federal policymakers enact major budget reforms. Unless spending is cut, the United States is headed for economic ruin. We need to cut entitlements, domestic discretionary programs and defense spending, as Cato has detailed at http://www.DownsizingGovernment.org.
Chris Edwards is editor of Cato Institute’sDownsizing Government.org.
Cutting spending would boost the economy because many federal programs have very low or negative returns. Many programs cause severe economic distortions. Other programs damage the environment and restrict individual freedom. And the federal government has expanded into hundreds of areas that would be better left to state and local governments, businesses, charities and individuals.
With the upcoming debt-limit vote, fiscal conservatives in Congress have a real chance to start turning the tide. If they don’t stick to their guns, the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” we celebrate this July 4 will become meaningless as Washington usurps an ever larger share of our incomes and our economy
A Christian response to Papa Roach’s song “The Last Resort” (Part 1)
Papa Roach – Last Resort (Censored Version)
Amy Winehouse died at the young age of 27 and she had lived a life filled with drug and alcohol addiction. This series on Papa Roach is meant to provide answers to those who feel trapped. Hopefully it will people to avoid troubles like Amy Winehouse experienced.
Today I am starting a series of posts on this song “The Last Resort” by Papa Roach.
The band’s place in the pop music landscape was established with the release of their breakout single, “Last Resort,” which was quickly picked up by MTV and nominated for a “Best New Artist Video” award at the 2000 Video Music Awards. The song is a gut-wrenching first-person chronicle of hopelessness that’s gone so deep the singer is seriously contemplating suicide. For casual listeners, the song is very confusing. Listening to the song reveals the criticisms claiming the song promotes suicide could certainly be warranted. Kids who are riding the fence because of numerous other problems in their lives could interpret the song in a way that would give them permission to go over the edge, especially if they don’t know the story behind the song.
But the band is adamant about the fact that the song is about fighting to survive by overcoming depression, rather than allowing it to lead to suicide. “It’s not saying I can’t go on living. It’s saying I can’t go on living this way,” says Dick (Spin, 10/00). He also says, “Last Resort” has “a positive edge to it, as far as like, ‘Don’t succumb to it. Keep yourself afloat.’ With these problems in your life, find a friend you can confide in” (Sonicnet.com).
I know there are some curse words in the following song. I have eliminated both times the curse word is used. I really think that there needs to be a response to the young people who are saying things like the words in this song Here are some of the words:
Do you even care if I die pleading, Would it be wrong, would it be right, If I took my life tonight, Chances are that I might, and I’m contimplating suicide, ‘Cause I’m losing my sight, losing my mind, Wish somebody would tell me I’m fine, Nothing’s alright, nothing is fine, I’m running and I’m crying, I never realized I was spread too thin, Till it was too late andI was empty within, Hungry, feeding on my chaos and living in sin, Downward spiral, where do i begin, It all started when i lost my mother, No love for myself and no love for another,Searching to find a love upon a higher level, finding nothing but QUESTIONS AND DEVILS, I can’t go on living this way, Cut my life into pieces, This is my last resort.
Is there hope for youth that feel this way? There is hope in my view only if you realize that God exists and cares for you and your future. Seeking God is the answer just like Solomon found out in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Chris Martin of the rock group Coldplay seems to be on a similar quest to find spiritual answers.
Below is a portion of the article “Papa Roach—Infesting and reflecting youth culture by Walt Mueller.
Twenty years ago I lived in Florida. The sun was always bright. The air was always warm. The ocean water was always blue. The tropical flowers were always beautiful. And my apartment was always home to an army of Palmetto bugs that somehow managed to survive visits from the exterminator and frequent fumigations. There were three other things I learned about these critters when I lived down south. First, everyone had them in their houses. Second, calling them “Palmetto bugs” was just a nice way of forgetting that the indestructible bugs were really nothing more than roaches. And third, there was really nothing you could do to get rid of them.
For a home-owner, the roach population’s ability to live and thrive even after being targeted for destruction is a nightmare. To kids who have experienced the chaos of relational upheaval in today’s confusing, selfish and oft-hopeless culture, the indestructible longevity of a roach can become an admirable quality.
Jacoby Shaddix is a young man whose difficult background left him close to hopeless and hanging on to life by a thread. Now 24 years old and known as Coby Dick, he’s the lead singer of the band named Papa Roach. While the name was originally taken from Shaddix’s Grandpa Roatch, there’s more to it than meets the eye. “We look at ourselves like cockroaches,” says Dick. “We’re survivors” (Rolling Stone,8/31/00). Judging from the band’s recent rise to mainstream music popularity, Dick and his bandmates are putting forth a message that’s resonating with a youth culture hoping to survive like indestructible roaches in a world seemingly bent on destroying their youthful hopes and dreams.
Turn on your radio and/or MTV and it won’t be long until you realize the music and message of Papa Roach has connected with today’s mainstream youth culture. What is it that’s made them connect with so many young ears, eyes, minds and hearts? What’s the message and worldview communicated in and through the music of Papa Roach? Is there anything we can learn from their growing influence among our kids? As with all other popular music, there’s more to Papa Roach than meets the ear. We need to dig deeper to look beneath the band’s lyrics and music to discover who they are and how that identity has facilitated their growing connection with kids. Looking more deeply at the Papa Roach history, music and appeal offers deep insight into the collective and individual values, attitudes and behaviors of today’s children and teens.
Papa Roach’s Story
The roots of Papa Roach go back to Vacaville, a small town in California where the kids say there’s little or nothing to do. Like so many other kids in Vacaville, Coby Dick says he was “a wild kid” (Rolling Stone, 7/6-20/2000). When he describes his “rough” childhood he talks openly about his hyperactivity, mood swings and bed-wetting until the age of 16. When Dick was barely into his middle school years, his father left home and didn’t speak to him for 12 years—and only after Dick called his dad while writing the band’s current album, Infest.
Always interested in music, Dick became proficient on the bass clarinet and played in an award-winning woodwind ensemble while in high school. By the age of 17, Dick had left home to live on his own in a rented room while making money as a dishwasher. When he was 19, he decided to deal with his personal issues by writing his life down in the form of lyrics as “a way to vent frustrations with things that’ve happened in my life. This is the perfect way for me to get some things off my mind and come to peace with certain situations” (Alternative Press, 10/00). Dick wears the chaos on his left bicep where there’s a tattoo of a house engulfed in flames. “It’s a representation of my family falling to pieces” (Spin, 10/00). Today, Coby Dick is the band’s lead singer, lyricist and songwriter. The music of Papa Roach reflects his thoughts on the first 24 years of his young life.
Drummer David Buckner (age 24) hooked up with Dick in 1993 when they were playing football together back inVacaville. An accomplished violinist, Buckner opened his family’s garage for the band’s original rehearsals. At that time, the band consisted of Dick, Buckner, bass player Will James and a trombone player. They made their performance debut at a high school talent show.
After a short time they canned the trombone player and added guitarist Jerry Horton (age 25). To this day, Horton doesn’t fit the stereotype of a rock and roll musician. He remains committed to being “straight-edge,” a moniker describing his decision to never take drugs, never smoke and never use alcohol. His bandmates claim they’ve never heard him use profanity.
During the early years, the band played club shows, and handed out a series of self-released EPs and demos on the street. They released Potatoes For Christmas (1994) and Coca Bonita (1995) before Will James left the band because his ongoing involvement in a church camp kept the band from practicing over the summer months. Their local following grew and they hired their roadie Tobin Esperance (age 20) in 1996 to replace James.
The band self-released two more albums: Old Friends From Young Years … Let ‘Em Know (1997) and Five Tracks Deep (1998), the latter of which convinced the folks at Warner Brothers to finance a demo record for Papa Roach. But in a strange turn of events, Warner Brothers abruptly dropped plans for the band as they were rejected by several record labels. Then in October 1999, the band signed on with Dreamworks.
In the months since then, Papa Roach released an album, joined the Summer of 2000 Vans’ Warped Tour, and has toured with Korn.
For more information on resources to help you understand today’s rapidly changing youth culture, contact the Center for Parent/Youth Understanding.
Help for the Suicidal
God offers you true, living hope–not a false hope based on your death.
By David Powlison
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
Are you having suicidal thoughts and feelings? Perhaps you are convinced that life is not worth living. You feel like your world is collapsing in on you. Your life seems hopeless—like a black hole with all love, hope, and joy sucked out. If you are contemplating suicide, you have already done a lot of thinking about your life.
But have you thought about how God views your life?
Right now you are living in a world of despair. You can’t see any solution to your problems. You’re not looking forward to anything. The future seems empty.
God’s perspective on your life is very different. Your life is precious to Him. He knows everything about you—even how many hairs are on your head (Matthew 10:30). Your life is so significant to Him that He forbids you to take it. God says that all murder is wrong, and that includes the self-murder of suicide (Exodus 20:13).
Bring your hopelessness to God
God is not surprised or put off by your hopeless feelings. He wants you to bring your despair to Him, and cry for help right now, in the middle of your darkness and pain. Throughout history God’s children have cried to him and He has helped them. Listen to the voice of David who cried out his despair to God thousands of years ago, “In the day of my trouble I call upon you, for you answer me” (Psalm 86:7).
Today is your day of trouble. Tell God all your sorrows, all your troubles, and all the reasons suicide is on your mind. Do you feel, like David, that you are in the “depths of the grave”? Ask God to hear your prayer and listen to your cry for grace (Psalm 86:6). On this day the living God promises to listen to you and help you.
Your reasons for despair; God’s voice of hope
Why are you feeling hopeless? Are you struggling with physical suffering? A broken relationship? Shame and guilt from mistakes and failures? An unrealized dream? What problem do you believe suicide will solve?
Your suicidal feelings and actions don’t come out of the blue. They have reasons you can discover and understand. Your particular reasons will show you how you’re experiencing, interpreting, and reacting to your world. When you discover your reasons, you will also be describing what is most important to you. The loss or pain that makes you feel like your life is not worth living points to the thing that you believe would make your life worth living.
We will look at four kinds of reasons for hopelessness. As you read, look for the specific reasons you are feeling hopeless. And then listen to what God says to you about your particular troubles that brings hope.
1. Unrelenting suffering. Your hopelessness might stem from overwhelming suffering. The death of someone close to you, your own chronic pain and illness, postpartum depression, a broken relationship, poverty, racial prejudice, etc., are all situations that can fill you with despair.
If this is why you feel hopeless, read through Psalm 31. Written by David, these words vividly capture the feeling of wasting away with grief.
Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am in distress;
my eye is wasted from grief;
my soul and my body also.
For my life is spent with sorrow,
and my years with sighing; (v. 9-10)
Is this what your life is like?
But this psalm is also filled with hope. David remembers that God sees him in his affliction and knows all about his troubles. He remembers that in God’s presence he is safe:
Oh, how abundant is your goodness, which you have stored up for those who fear you and worked for those who take refuge in you, in the sight of the children of mankind! In the cover of your presence you hide them from the plots of men; you store them in your shelter from the strife of tongues.” (v. 19-20)
David’s life, like yours, was full of troubles and discouragement, yet because God was with him, he has hope. He says, “But you heard the voice of my pleas for mercy when I cried to you for help” (v. 22). And he ends with this call: “Be strong and let your heart take courage, all you who wait for the Lord” (v. 24). David is able to endure with courage because God is with him.
God is calling you to persevere in your suffering, but not by simply gritting your teeth. Persevering through suffering is only possible when you put your hope in the living God. He promises to come near to you, to be present with you, and to let you experience His goodness right in the middle of your pain and difficulty.
2. Personal failure. Your suicidal thoughts and feelings might be related to mistakes and failures. Is your hopelessness an attempt to atone for your sins, to punish yourself, to avoid feelings of shame? Perhaps you are so full of guilt and shame that you don’t want to be around people or even continue to live. Can you find hope when you’ve blown it so badly that you think you will never be able to hold your head up again?
The amazing thing about the Bible is that it is full of real people who made serious missteps—just like you. David wrote Psalm 32 after he committed adultery, got a woman pregnant, and then tried to cover things up by arranging to have the woman’s husband killed. You can read the whole story in 2 Samuel 11-12.
In Psalm 32:3-4 he vividly describes his experience of despair. Perhaps you are also feeling like this:
… my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long.
For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer.
David’s experience of guilt and failure comes partly from God and partly from his own conscience. But why is this psalm full of joy instead of shame? Because of what God has done for him in the middle of his nightmare of guilt. His joy comes from God’s forgiveness of him and from God’s promise to guide him (Psalm 31:1-2, 8).
Here’s someone, like you, who is living with terrible personal failure. But instead of meditating on his failures and turning his sins and mistakes over and over in his mind, he chooses to remember who God is. He knows the God who forgives. He trusts the God who promises to keep his eyes on him, who will personally instruct, lead, and counsel. So he ends like this, “steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord,” and adds a call to joy, “Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart!” (Psalm 32:10-11).
What an amazing turnaround—someone who knows his sinfulness, but also knows God’s mercy, can be called righteous by the grace and mercy of God. You, too, can experience what David experienced. But to do so, you must seek this Lord. David described how he felt after his sin was exposed, but he hadn’t confessed his sins to God. His vitality drained away, he felt hopeless and lifeless. If that is how you feel, then do what David did—go to God with your sins and failures.
Here is a wonderful description of seeking God in the middle of your failure and guilt, David says, “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,’ and you forgave the iniquity of my sin” (Psalm 32:5). Notice that David is turning to God with his failures—not to those around him. He doesn’t live in shame anymore because he is forgiven. He can hold up his head, even though everyone knows about his failures, because God is with him.
And then David gives the key to having God with him, “Therefore, let everyone who is godly offer prayer to you.” He knows that prayer brings him into God’s presence where he is safe from trouble, even the trouble he brought upon himself.
3. Failed dreams. You can also struggle with hopelessness when the thing that has given your life meaning is taken from you. Perhaps it’s a job you didn’t get, an unrealized life goal, or your children turning out a certain way. Whatever you have organized your life around, its absence can leave you feeling empty and despairing.
Perhaps you didn’t know how important your dream was to you until it didn’t happen. Now you are experiencing the hopelessness of a failed dream. But what does your failed dream reveal about where you find meaning? When what you have lived for is taken from you, it can feel like you are dying. You are in so much pain that suicide seems like your only alternative. But God has a better way. He will give you true, lasting hope that can never be taken away from you.
God says, in Psalm 33, that it is He who “frustrates the plans of the peoples” (Psalm 33:10). Later in the psalm he says why—because all those hopes are futile. “The king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. The war horse is a false hope for salvation, and by its great might it cannot rescue” (Psalm 33:16, 17).
These are things that people trusted in thousands of years ago. What you trust in—those things on which you built your life, your identity, your success—are different, but the result is the same. Anything you trust in besides God’s steadfast love for you is futile. When you put your hope in God’s love, He will deliver your soul from death (Psalm 33:18, 19).
Let the death of your dreams be the door into putting your trust in God’s love for you. He will be your help and shield. As you “trust in His holy name,” He will deliver your soul from death, from thoughts of death, and from trying to take your own life.
4. False hopes. Perhaps your suicidal thinking is not from hopelessness, but from false hopes. Dreaming about and planning your suicide is what brings you hope. You believe that killing yourself will bring about some wonderful answer or solution to your problems. If you have been deeply hurt by someone, you might see suicide as a way to make others suffer. You might hope that suicide will bring an end to your suffering and those you love will be better off without you. Or you might hope that your suicidal gesture will get you what you want—attention, love, or even a break from the pressures of life. But whatever your hopes are—“I’ll be in a place of peace,” or “Then everyone will know how much they made me suffer”—if they include suicide as a solution they are a false hope.
Suicide is never an answer. Two wrongs never make a right—don’t forget that suicide is a great wrong. If you have been wronged, please don’t think that suicide is the way to make that wrong better. God offers you true, living hope—not a false hope based on your death. Hope from God comes in the midst of evil and trouble and it is a hope that will never end.
Paul talks about true and living hope in the second half of Romans 8. True hope comes from knowing God as your Father and receiving His Spirit as a gift. Living as a child of God means that instead of responding to trouble by hurting yourself, you go to your heavenly Father for help. He gives you his Spirit to help you in your weakness and even teach you how and what to ask for (Romans 8:15, 16). It’s the Spirit of God that will teach you that your present sufferings “are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed” in you (Romans 8:18).
We live in a world where bad things happen. But you have received the best gift of all: the Spirit of life, the Holy Spirit of Jesus. You have been given the gift of a relationship with God now that will lead to an indestructible life forever. There is nothing in this world that can separate you from God’s love—not trouble, distress, hardship, or anything in all creation (Romans 8:35). God’s love will keep you safe, and it’s yours for the asking.
The resurrection—your reason for hope
How do you know that the promises God makes to you are true? How do you know that the living God gives true, substantial hope? Because Jesus defeated death when He died on the cross and rose again. Peter explains it this way, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, ” (1 Peter 1:3-4).
Jesus is alive. His resurrection is your guarantee that real hope can be yours. Your hope is not based on a vague belief that changed circumstances, time passing, or a new set of friends will cure how horrible you feel. It’s a living hope based on the physical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because the resurrection really happened, your story will end in life.
The passage goes on to say, “to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading.” When you have this living hope, then what you get out of life (your “inheritance”) won’t be destroyed or ruined by your troubles.
Related posts:
A Christian response to Papa Roach’s song “The Last Resort” (Part 2)
Papa Roach – Last Resort (Censored Version) This series of posts concerns the song “The Last Resort.” Amy Winehouse died today and it was a tragic loss. That really troubled me that she did not seek spiritual help instead of turning to drugs and alcohol. This post today will give hope to those we feel like […]
Heartbreaking story of Amy Winehouse
I am in the middle of a series on the Papa Roach song “Last Resort” which deals with suicide and then today I hear this sad story about Amy Winehouse. Inside Amy Winehouse’s troubled life With the news that British R&B star and tabloid target Amy Winehouse has died from as yet undisclosed causes, […]
A Christian response to Papa Roach’s song “The Last Resort” (Part 1)
Papa Roach – Last Resort (Censored Version) Today I am starting a series of posts on this song “The Last Resort” by Papa Roach. The band’s place in the pop music landscape was established with the release of their breakout single, “Last Resort,” which was quickly picked up by MTV and nominated for a “Best […]
5 reasons class warfare is stupid, response to “Sound Policy” blogger
President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. For more information please visit our web page: www.freedomandprosperity.org.
______________________
Today I read this below from the Arkansas Times Blog:
Since the top 20% of Americans have roughly 91% of the total wealth, any solution to the budget deficit should call on those 20% to be responsible for AT LEAST 91% (I would argue 100%) of what it costs to balance the budget. To do otherwise would be a reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor and middle class to give to the rich.
Posted from my Chamber of Commerce work computer on C of C time.
Posted by Sound Policy on July 22, 2011 at 11:21 AM | Report this comment
_______________________________________
The video clip above gives 5 reasons why class warfare is stupid. The article below also addresses some of the same reasons.
The White House Has Declared Class War on the Rich, but the Poor and Middle Class Will Suffer Collateral Damage
Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year, which means a big tax increase in 2011. Tax rates for all brackets will increase, the double tax on dividends will skyrocket from 15 percent to 39.6 percent, the child credit will shrink, the death tax will be reinstated (at 55 percent!), the marriage penalty will get worse, and the capital gains tax rate will jump to 20 percent. All of these provisions will be unwelcome news for taxpayers, but it’s important to look at direct and indirect costs. A smaller paycheck is an example of direct costs, but in some cases the indirect costs — such as slower economic growth — are even more important. This is why higher tax rates on entrepreneurs and investors are so misguided. For every dollar the government collects from policies targeting these people (such as higher capital gains and dividend taxes, a renewed death tax, and increases in the top tax rates), it’s likely that there will be significant collateral economic damage.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration’s approach is to look at tax policy only through the prism of class warfare. This means that some tax cuts can be extended, but only if there is no direct benefit to anybody making more than $200,000 or $250,000 per year. The folks at the White House apparently don’t understand, however, that higher direct costs on the “rich” will translate into higher indirect costs on the rest of us. Higher tax rates on work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship will slow economic growth. And, because of compounding, even small changes in the long-run growth rate can have a significant impact on living standards within one or two decades. This is one of the reasons why high-tax European welfare states have lost ground in recent decades compared to the United States.
When the economy slows down, that’s not good news for upper-income taxpayers. But it’s also bad news for the rest of us — and it can create genuine hardship for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. The White House may be playing smart politics. As this blurb from the Washington Post indicates, the President seems to think that he can get away with blaming the recession on tax cuts that took place five years before the downturn began. But for those of us who care about prosperity more than politics, what really matters is that the economy is soon going to be hit with higher tax rates on productive behavior. It’s unclear whether that’s good for the President’s poll numbers, but it’s definitely bad for America.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner took the lead Sunday in continuing the Obama administration’s push for extending middle-class tax cuts while allowing similar cuts for the nation’s wealthiest individuals to expire in January. …The tax cuts, put in place between 2001 and 2003, have become an intensely political topic ahead of the congressional elections this fall. Republicans have argued that extending the full spectrum of tax cuts is essential to strengthening the sluggish economic recovery. Geithner rejected that notion, telling ABC’s “This Week” that letting tax cuts for the wealthiest expire would not hurt growth. …On Saturday, the president used part of his weekly address to chide House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and other Republicans who oppose the administration’s approach, saying the GOP was pushing “the same policies that led us into this recession.”
As part of the Economist magazine’s coverage of religion’s role in the twenty-first century, a recent story covers the “new wars of religion.”

