The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.
I am going to continue this series and mainly include the opinions of Milton Friedman concerning these matters. Today I have included some comments from Milton Friedman from his Film Series “Free to Choose: Episode 10 How to Stay Free,” which addresses several issues concerning how to control our spending. This is part 3 of this series concerning Milton Friedman’s thoughts from this video clip.
Milton Friedman:What we need is widespread public recognition that the central government should be limited to its basic functions. Defending the nation against foreign enemies. Preserving order at home. Mediating our dispute. We must come to recognize that voluntary cooperation through the market and in other ways is a far better way to solve our problem than turning them over to the government.
__________________________
If we had the federal government spending money on these basic functions that the founders envisioned then we would have no problem at all.
Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?
We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.
I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. It is a necessary doctrine and today I want to show why.
Three thousand years ago, Solomon took a look at life “under the sun” in his book of Ecclesiastes. Christian scholar Ravi Zacharias has noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term ‘under the sun.’ What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system, and you are left with only this world of time plus chance plus matter.”
This is the exact thing that Woody Allen does in the movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” He envisions a world without God.
Let me show you some inescapable conclusions if you choose to live without God in the picture. Solomon came to these same conclusions when he looked at life “under the sun.”
Death is the great equalizer (Eccl 3:20, “All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.”)
Chance and time have determined the past, and they will determine the future. (Ecclesiastes 9:11-13 “I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. Moreover, no one knows when their hour will come: As fish are caught in a cruel net,
or birds are taken in a snare, so people are trapped by evil times that fall unexpectedly upon them.”)
Power reigns in this life, and the scales are not balanced(Eccl 4:1; “Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed—
and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors— and they have no comforter.” 7:15 “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: the righteous perishing in their righteousness, and the wicked living long in their wickedness. ).
Nothing in life gives true satisfaction without God including knowledge (1:16-18), ladies and liquor (2:1-3, 8, 10, 11), and great building projects (2:4-6, 18-20).
_______________________
Power reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced.
Solomon comes to the realization that powers reigns in this life and the scales are not balanced. Solomon notes, “Again, I observed all the oppression that takes place under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, with no one to comfort them. The oppressors have great power, and their victims are helpless. (Ecclesiastes 4:1).
People that believe there is no afterlife must concede that Hitler will never face the due punishment for his acts. I am a big Woody Allen movie fan and no other movie better demonstrates Ecclesiastes 4:1 better than the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS because the character Judah was able to get away with murder and in the end of the movie does not fear that God will punish him.
If you do not have God in the picture then you must come to the same conclusions that Solomon came to and Woody Allen shows that very clearly in his film.
By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. Solomon looks above the sun and brings God back into the picture. I am hoping that Woody Allen will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to concerning the meaning of life and man’s proper place in the universe in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil
This is the same conclusion that the article “Hell:The Horrible Choice,” by Patrick Zukeran of Probe Ministries comes to. Here is a portion:
Why Hell Is Necessary and Just
Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.
Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13).The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.
Notes1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282. 2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18. 3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87. 4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.
Eric Schurenberg is Editor-in-Chief of BNET.com and Editorial Director of CBS MoneyWatch.com. Previously, Eric was managing editor of MONEY. As managing editor, he expanded the editorial focus to new interests including real estate, family finance, health, retirement, and the workplace. Prior to MONEY, Eric was deputy editor of Business 2.0. He was also the managing editor of goldman.com, a Web site for Goldman Sachs Group’s personal wealth management business, and an assistant managing editor at Fortune magazine. Schurenberg has won a Gerald Loeb Award for distinguished business journalism, a National Magazine Award, and a Page One Award.
Social Security isn’t the only cause of America’s fiscal problems, but it is Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them. No serious solution to our debt can ignore a program that will tax and spend about 4.8% of GDP this year and account for about 20% of all federal spending-and that within a few decades will count almost a third of the population as beneficiaries. But whenever I write about Social Security here at CBS MoneyWatch, I’m always struck by how much disagreement there is about how the system really works.
A handful of misconceptions tend to crop up repeatedly-often having to do with that fiscal fun-house mirror, the Social Security trust fund. And despite the efforts of writers like Allan Sloan and experts like the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle, the myths won’t die. This column won’t kill them either, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a whack. Here goes:
Myth: The trust fund is invested in Treasury bonds, the most secure investments in the world. To suggest that the trust fund wouldn’t pay is blatant fear mongering.
The trust fund’s IOUs are entered on the Treasuries books as non-trading “special issue” bonds, paying interest at a rate equal to an average of outstanding Treasuries. And yes, the Treasury will undoubtedly pay if Social Security asks.
But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether taxpayers think it’s so important to maintain Social Security benefits that they will gladly absorb the burden of paying off those bonds on the current schedule. Remember, Congress (that is, you know, taxpayers) can cut benefits-and thus postpone the need for Social Security to redeem any bonds–just by passing a law.
In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities.
_____________________________________
Social Security Ponzi Scheme
By DICK ARMEY
Commentary
Wednesday, Jul. 25, 2007
REFORMING retirement security in America is the greatest political opportunity — and responsibility — of our generation. Yet the topic of Social Security and Medicare is shockingly absent from Presidential hustings.
Simply ignoring the problem does not mean it is going away. Thomas Saving, a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare programs, estimates a breathtaking $83.6 trillion unfunded liability in the two entitlements, which is a tremendous gap between promised obligations and what the government will actually collect in payroll taxes.
Serious reforms of these broken government programs based on personal ownership have fallen victim to Republicans who don’t dare and Democrats who don’t care. Washington simply will not take the issue of retirement security seriously, until the American people force them to do so.
After all of the political demagoguery and tactical missteps of last year’s failed debate, what do the American people actually think about their retirement security under Social Security and Medicare? New survey data released by McLaughlin and Associates found that nearly nine in 10 likely voters are concerned about “catastrophic problems with Social Security and Medicare in the future that could directly affect the quality of [their] retirement.” These findings transcended party lines.
The core problem is not merely one of solvency. We could balance the books tomorrow by drastically slashing benefits and raising taxes. Paying more and getting less is considered a “bipartisan fix,” but such painful solutions only temporarily solve the government’s problem and do nothing to improve the retirement security of Americans. Such a fix will force younger workers to pay a double penalty of higher taxes during their working life, only to receive less of a benefit in retirement.
The McLaughlin survey makes it clear that voters want entitlement reform to be a major part of the national conversation during the 2008 presidential campaign. Ninety-six percent of voters said it is important that “a candidate for President in 2008 concentrates on the present and future problems with Social Security and Medicare by discussing and demonstrating a realistic plan to provide retirement security for current and future retirees.”
Voters also want elected officials to take a broad look at the problem, with a strong super-majority of 84 percent of voters agreeing that a national retirement security program should include provisions for health care, as well as income.
Voters are not afraid of change, with seven in 10 approving of “changing our current retirement system so that their payroll taxes are placed in a secure account that they own and control and are allowed to grow until they retire when they can withdraw the funds as they need for income and health care expenses.”It is time to give American workers the chance to create and fund protected retirement accounts that they can own, control and pass on to their children. The government would provide the structure and appropriate safeguards, but the individuals would have control over their own retirement destiny.
Outside of government, there is an ownership revolution, with bankrupt defined-benefit pension plans being replaced with individually owned defined-contribution retirement plans, which are portable, interest-earning and secure. Let us also be clear that leaving federally sponsored entitlement plans should be optional; individuals would simply be given the choice between federal or personal control.
This is where the voters of New Hampshire have a special responsibility. If primary voters demand action on entitlements, politicians will respond. On June 6, when asked by activists from Students for Saving Social Security whether he would support giving people more control over their retirement accounts, Mayor Rudy Giuliani responded, “I’m going to tell you my overall philosophy that applies to Social Security, health care, jobs, school choice: It’s your money. You should have as much control over it as I can give you. You can do a better job with your money than the mess in Washington. When we give you more control over Social Security, we move forward.”
Sen. John McCain and Gov. Mitt Romney have made similar public statements in support of personal accounts, but the issue is unfortunately not mentioned on the issue pages of their respective campaign Web sites. Social Security is also conspicuously absent from the issue pages of the leading Democratic candidates.
I believe that pocketbook voters in New Hampshire — Democrats, Republicans and independents — are looking for a political entrepreneur willing to break convention by offering a serious, adult policy solution to the federal government’s failing retirement programs. If voters build the political stage for real change, will the next President have the wisdom to step up?
Dick Armey, U.S. House majority leader from 1995 to 2002, is chairman of FreedomWorks Foundation.
Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is in hell where he has official duties as a greeter,welcoming Osama bin-Laden?
We all suspect strongly, of course, that bin-Laden will spend eternity in hell, whatever his form and whatever hell’s. But we should not embrace a politician’s seeking electoral gain by dictating and announcing after-life dispositions. Those we should defer to a higher power, whose divine authority no mortal man should dare usurp, even for TV ratings or votes, or both.
I really am uncomfortable with all this kind of lighthearted talk about hell. The traditional Christian view of hell is a very serious doctrine. It is a necessary doctrine and today I want to show why.
Is hell necessary? How is this doctrine consistent with a God of love? These are questions I face when I speak on the fate of unbelievers. The necessity and justice of hell can be recognized when we understand the nature of God and the nature of man.
Hell is necessary because God’s justice requires it. Our culture focuses mostly on God’s nature of love, mercy, and grace. However, God is also just and holy, and this must be kept in balance. Justice demands retribution, the distribution of rewards and punishments in a fair way. God’s holiness demands that He separate himself entirely from sin and evil (Habakkuk 1:13).The author of Psalm 73 struggles with the dilemma of the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the death of millions in the Soviet Union, but he died peacefully in his sleep without being punished for his deeds. Since evil often goes unpunished in this lifetime, it must be dealt with at a future time to fulfill God’s justice and holiness.
Notes1. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 282. 2. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Touchstone Books, 1957), 17 – 18. 3. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87. 4. C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan), 69.Woody Allen’s movie Crimes and Misdemeanors does a great job of showing that if God does not exist then people like Stalin and Hitler were “home free” in that they were never going to be punished for what they did. “Existential subjects to me are still the only subjects worth dealing with. I don’t think that one can aim more deeply than at the so-called existential themes, the spiritual themes.” WOODY ALLEN
Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS , is an excellent icebreaker concerning the need of God while making decisions in the area of personal morality. In this film, Allen attacks his own atheistic view of morality. Martin Landau plays a Jewish eye doctor named Judah Rosenthal raised by a religious father who always told him, “The eyes of God are always upon you.” However, Judah later concludes that God doesn’t exist. He has his mistress (played in the film by Anjelica Huston) murdered because she continually threatened to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. She also attempted to break up Judah ‘s respectable marriage by going public with their two-year affair. Judah struggles with his conscience throughout the remainder of the movie. He continues to be haunted by his father’s words: “The eyes of God are always upon you.” This is a very scary phrase to a young boy, Judah observes. He often wondered how penetrating God’s eyes are.
Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his religious father had with Judah ‘s unbelieving Aunt May at the dinner table many years ago:
“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazis, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says aunt May
Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”
Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”
Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”
Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”
Judah ‘s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”
Woody Allen has exposed a weakness in his own humanistic view that God is not necessary as a basis for good ethics. There must be an enforcement factor in order to convince Judah not to resort to murder. Otherwise, it is fully to Judah ‘s advantage to remove this troublesome woman from his life.
The Bible tells us, “{God} has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The secularist calls this an illusion, but the Bible tells us that the idea that we will survive the grave was planted in everyone’s heart by God Himself. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that God has instilled a conscience in everyone that points each of them to Him and tells them what is right and wrong (also Romans 2:14 -15).
It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” THE HUMANIST, May/June 1997, pp. 38-39)
Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (THE HUMANIST, September/October 1997, p. 2)
The secularist can only give incomplete answers to these questions: How could you have convinced Judah not to kill? On what basis could you convince Judah it was wrong for him to murder?
As Christians, we would agree with Judah ‘s father that “The eyes of God are always upon us.” Proverbs 5:21 asserts, “For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He ponders all his paths.” Revelation 20:12 states, “…And the dead were judged (sentenced) by what they had done (their whole way of feeling and acting, their aims and endeavors) in accordance with what was recorded in the books” (Amplified Version). The Bible is revealed truth from God. It is the basis for our morality. Judah inherited the Jewish ethical values of the Ten Commandments from his father, but, through years of life as a skeptic, his standards had been lowered. Finally, we discover that Judah ‘s secular version of morality does not resemble his father’s biblically-based morality.
Woody Allen’s CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS forces unbelievers to grapple with the logical conclusions of a purely secular morality. It opens a door for Christians to find common ground with those whom they attempt to share Christ; we all have to deal with personal morality issues. However, the secularist has no basis for asserting that Judah is wrong.
Larry King actually mentioned on his show, LARRY KING LIVE, that Chuck Colson had discussed the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS with him. Colson asked King if life was just a Darwinian struggle where the ruthless come out on top. Colson continued, “When we do wrong, is that our only choice? Either live tormented by guilt, or else kill our conscience and live like beasts?” (BREAKPOINT COMMENTARY, “Finding Common Ground,” September 14, 1993)
Later, Colson noted that discussing the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS with King presented the perfect opportunity to tell him about Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Colson believes the Lord is working on Larry King.
(Caution: CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is rated PG-13. It does include some adult themes.)
Prince William and Kate Middleton were married in a beautiful ceremony at Westminster Abbey in London Friday. There were so many picture-perfect moments from the star-studded guest list and the bride’s gorgeous gown to the carriage processional and two balcony kisses, we just had to share them all. Click through to see highlights from the royal wedding including the queen, the Middletons, the gown, the newlyweds, and so much more!
Prince William and Kate Middleton were married in a beautiful ceremony at Westminster Abbey in London Friday. There were so many picture-perfect moments from the star-studded guest list and the bride’s gorgeous gown to the carriage processional and two balcony kisses, we just had to share them all. Click through to see highlights from the royal wedding including the queen, the Middletons, the gown, the newlyweds, and so much more!
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
Derek and I believed the lie of today’s culture that living together is a natural progression of a lifelong relationship. Nowhere in Scripture does it suggest a man should leave and cleave to a woman by renting an apartment. For me, living together was a farce, a halfhearted commitment with a huge “EXIT” sign looming over it. Marriage is a lifetime commitment — a covenant — not a six-month lease.
Thankfully, God is using our mistake to encourage other couples. As the opportunity arises, we share our story. We steer them away from living together and towards God’s plan — marriage.
Dr. Adrian Rogers – Steadfast Loyalty To Your Wife
Broadcast As the U.S. fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bin Laden periodically released audio and video recordings (like this one, from 2007) calling for the destruction of America and its allies.
Deep in hiding, his terror organization becoming battered and fragmented, Osama bin Laden kept pressing followers to find new ways to hit the U.S., officials say, citing his private journal and other documents recovered in last week’s raid.
Strike smaller cities, bin Laden suggested. Target trains as well as planes. If possible, strike on significant dates, such as the Fourth of July and the 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Above all, kill as many Americans as possible in a single attack.
Though he was out of the public eye and al-Qaida seemed to be weakening, bin Laden never yielded control of his worldwide organization, U.S. officials said Wednesday. His personal, handwritten journal and his massive collection of computer files reveal his hand at work in every recent major al-Qaida threat, including plots in Europe last year that had travelers and embassies on high alert, two officials said.
They described the intelligence to The Associated Press only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about what was found in bin Laden’s hideout. Analysts are continuing to review the documents.
The information shatters the government’s conventional thinking about bin Laden, who had been regarded for years as mostly an inspirational figurehead whose years in hiding made him too marginalized to maintain operational control of the organization he founded.
Instead, bin Laden was communicating from his walled compound in Pakistan with al-Qaida’s offshoots, including the Yemen branch that has emerged as the leading threat to the United States, the documents indicate. Though there is no evidence yet that he was directly behind the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner or the nearly successful attack on cargo planes heading for Chicago and Philadelphia, it’s now clear that they bear some of bin Laden’s hallmarks.
He was well aware of U.S. counterterrorist efforts and schooled his followers in working around them, the messages to his followers show. Don’t limit attacks to New York City, he said in his writings. Consider other areas such as Los Angeles or smaller cities. Spread out the targets.
In one particularly macabre bit of mathematics, bin Laden’s writings show him musing over just how many Americans he must kill to force the U.S. to withdraw from the Arab world. He concludes that the smaller, scattered attacks since 9/11 had not been enough. He tells his disciples that only a body count of thousands, something on the scale of 9/11, would shift U.S. policy.
The handwritten journal included significant dates bin Laden noted as preferred for attacking American targets, including the Fourth of July and the 10th anniversary of 9/11, a U.S. official said. He also schemed about ways to sow political dissent in Washington and play political figures against one another, officials said.
The communications were in missives sent via plug-in computer storage devices called flash drives. The devices were ferried to bin Laden’s compound by couriers, a process that is slow but exceptionally difficult to track.
Intelligence officials have not identified any new planned targets or plots in their initial analysis of the 100 or so flash drives and five computers that Navy SEALs hauled away after killing bin Laden. Last week, the FBI and Homeland Security Department warned law enforcement officials nationwide to be on alert for possible attacks against trains, though officials said there was no specific plot.
Officials have not yet seen any indication that bin Laden had the ability to coordinate timing of attacks across the various al-Qaida affiliates in Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria, Iraq and Somalia, and it is also unclear from bin Laden’s documents how much the affiliate groups relied on his guidance. The Yemen group, for instance, has embraced the smaller-scale attacks that bin Laden’s writings indicate he regarded as unsuccessful. The Yemen branch had already surpassed his central operation as al-Qaida’s leading fundraising, propaganda and operational arm.
Al-Qaida has not named bin Laden’s successor, but all indications point to his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri. The question is whether al-Zawahri, or anyone, has the ability to keep so many disparate groups under the al-Qaida banner. The groups in Somalia and Algeria, for instance, have very different goals focused on local grievances. Without bin Laden to serve as their shepherd, it’s possible al-Qaida will further fragment.
British officials said the Americans had shared some information about the bin Laden cache but there had been nothing concrete yet to indicate his stamp on any of the recent terror attacks or plans in Britain — including a European plot last year involving the threat of a Mumbai-style shooting spree in a capital. Those officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.
Britain’s two largest terror attacks and plots — the 2005 suicide bombings and the trans-Atlantic liquid explosive plot to blow up several airliners in 2006 — both had trails that led back to Pakistan and al-Qaida figures, but there was never a direct link to bin Laden himself.
Most of the recent plots, including the stabbing of a lawmaker last year, have been traced to al-Qaida in Yemen and specifically the radical American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, British officials have said.
One British official said counterterror authorities had not been tracking bin Laden as they had other terrorists deemed more directly involved in operations — which may have been a mistake, from what they are now learning from bin Laden’s own words.
___
Kimberly Dozier can be reached on Twitter at kimberlydozier.
___
Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman in Washington, Paisley Dodds in London, Jamey Keaton in Paris and Al Clendenning in New York contributed to this report
The End On May 1, 2011, President Obama announced that bin Laden had been tracked to a house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he was killed by a team of Navy Seals. Here, men in Quetta, Pakistan, watch Obama deliver to the world the news of the terrorist leader’s death.
The White House, May 1, 2011 Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama, along with members of the national-security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House on May 1, 2011. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured.
Focus President Obama listens during one of a series of meetings in the Situation Room of the White House discussing the mission against bin Laden on May 1, 2011. For 40 minutes, the President and his senior aides could do nothing but watch the video screens and listen to the operation and ensuing firefight on the other side of the world.
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. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 5:24 pm CST on May 11, 2011.
Labor Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease Labor $135.676 B $2.803 B 2% In recent years, the Department of Labor has expanded substantially, with a large of amount of the increased funding coming from the expansion of unemployment benefits of up to 99 weeks. While this proposal exempts unemployment benefits from receiving funding cuts, the program will need to be reformed in the future, including a re-evaluation of the emergency unemployment benefits, as well as the extended unemployment benefits that provide up to 99 weeks – or nearly 2 years of unemployment benefits. Many economists have warned that prolonged unemployment benefits can increase unemployment duration by delaying individuals’ incentive to search for work. The proposal exempts the Employment and Training Administration (including UI benefits), Mine Safety and Health, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. However, this proposal eliminates all other Department of Labor programs.
Also contrary to Republican mythology, the infamous Bush tax cuts did anything but increase revenue, as tax cuts never do. As Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Bartlett shows, federal revenues dropped from 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000 to 18.5 percent in 2007.
Liberals like Max Brantley and Gene Lyons really do believe that if taxes are raised on the rich you will get more revenues, and if they are lowered then you get lower revenues. I am going to blow up that theory today.
She (Ruth Marcus) proceeds to correct Boehner on any number of factual mistakes, including the notion that economic growth doesn’t follow tax increases. See Bill Clinton, for one. And what about the idea that tax increases would increase the debt?
“A tax hike would wreak havoc not only on our economy’s ability to create private-sector jobs, but also on our ability to tackle the national debt.”
During the early 1980s, taxes were cut and public debt ballooned, from 26 percent of GDP in 1980 to 40 percent by 1986. In 1993, taxes were increased (and spending cut); debt as a share of the economy fell, from 49 percent to 33 percent. In 2001 and 2003, taxes were cut. By the time President Obama took office, debt had climbed to 40 percent of GDP.
Fable 2: The Reagan Tax Cuts “Caused” the Budget Deficit to Explode in the 1980s
Fifteen years ago, marginal tax rates and the progressivity of the tax system were dramatically reduced. Some suggested that these policies would so spur economic growth that tax revenue would actually increase. The outcome ofthat experiment is now a matter of record: not only did this response not occur, but the national debt quadrupled in the span of a dozen years.[25]
This is the most common and overly simplistic interpretation of the budgetary events of the 1980s. Further, it isfactually untrue that the Reagan tax cuts were a major cause of the budget deficits of the 1980s and the “quadrupling”of the debt. (In the 1980s the real debt doubled; it did not quadruple.) Real federal revenues grew at a faster pace afterthe Reagan tax cuts than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes. From 1982 to 1989, they expanded by 24.1 percent.Over a comparable seven-year period, 1990-97, a period that accounts for both the Bush and the Clinton tax increases,real federal revenues will have grown by 19.3 percent (see Table 5). The lesson of the 1980s and 1990s is consistentwith the supply-side theory that there are behavioral and investment responses to changes in tax rates.
As a share of GDP, federal revenues fell from 20.2 percent in 1981 (the peak year for taxes as ashare of GDP in the post-World War II period) to a low of 18.0 percent of GDP in 1984, and rose back up to 19.2percent by 1989. This would suggest that the Reagan tax cuts were a small contributing factor to the increase in thebudget deficit over the course of the 1980s. From 1950 to 1995, federal receipts have averaged 18.4 percent of GDP.Hence, throughout most of the Reagan years and clearly by the end, taxes as a share of national output weresubstantially above the postwar average.
If the Reagan tax cut was not the major contributing factor to the increasing deficit in the 1980s, what was? Therewere two primary explanations: (1) a large and sustained defense build-up; and (2) the unexpected rapid decline ininflation and the recession in the early 1980s.
The Defense Buildup and the Deficit. Table 6 shows that the cumulative increase in defense spending from 1981 to1989 ($806 billion) was larger than the entire cumulative increase in the budget deficit ($779 billion) in those years.That is, if defense spending had been held to the rate of inflation from 1981 to 1989, the total real deficit would havefallen in the 1980s rather than risen. It is also true that the decline in the military budget accounts for almost the entirefall in the deficit from 1988 to 1996.
[26]Table 5Reagan Tax Cuts vs. Bush-Clinton Tax Hikes:Overall Real Revenue Growth
Eric Schurenberg is Editor-in-Chief of BNET.com and Editorial Director of CBS MoneyWatch.com. Previously, Eric was managing editor of MONEY. As managing editor, he expanded the editorial focus to new interests including real estate, family finance, health, retirement, and the workplace. Prior to MONEY, Eric was deputy editor of Business 2.0. He was also the managing editor of goldman.com, a Web site for Goldman Sachs Group’s personal wealth management business, and an assistant managing editor at Fortune magazine. Schurenberg has won a Gerald Loeb Award for distinguished business journalism, a National Magazine Award, and a Page One Award.
Social Security isn’t the only cause of America’s fiscal problems, but it is Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them. No serious solution to our debt can ignore a program that will tax and spend about 4.8% of GDP this year and account for about 20% of all federal spending-and that within a few decades will count almost a third of the population as beneficiaries. But whenever I write about Social Security here at CBS MoneyWatch, I’m always struck by how much disagreement there is about how the system really works.
A handful of misconceptions tend to crop up repeatedly-often having to do with that fiscal fun-house mirror, the Social Security trust fund. And despite the efforts of writers like Allan Sloan and experts like the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle, the myths won’t die. This column won’t kill them either, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a whack. Here goes:
Myth: Social Security is funded until 2037
The Social Security trust fund–the ledger on which Uncle Sam records the surplus taxes that the program has accumulated over the years–is large enough that the program need not ask for extra money to pay benefits until 2037, the year that the trust fund “runs dry” if nothing changes. But that’s not the same as being funded-at least not in a way that has any economic meaning.
As you may know, the trust fund is, for accounting purposes, assumed to be invested in IOUs from the U.S. Treasury. When Social Security needs money beyond what it expects to collect in payroll taxes, it can redeem some of these IOUs. But it’s not as if the trust fund is a giant 401(k). It’s more like access to a rich but cash-strapped daddy’s credit card.
What that means is that Social Security can get what it needs from Treasury without having to ask permission from Congress. But when it redeems one of these IOUs, the Treasury (just like Daddy) has to come up with the money the old-fashioned way, by raising taxes or, more likely, borrowing more.
Dolly Madison at Daily Kos seems to think that Social Security’s need for cash can be met from the interest credited to the trust fund-that is, with more IOUs. Allan Sloan disagrees:
You know, of course, why this wouldn’t work — at least, I hope you know. It’s because the U.S. government ultimately has to pay its bills with cash, not with its own IOUs. In the long run, you need cash — real money — not funny money.
“Fully funded” suggests that the money to maintain today’s benefits until 2035 is already locked up. It isn’t. Redeeming IOUs from the trust fund (and the income imputed to those IOUs) will only put another burden on taxpayers who are simultaneously paying for Medicare, interest on the debt, and all the other purposes of government. At some point, the total burden will be too much.
___________________________________
Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts
There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely thanks to demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This video explains how personal accounts can solve both problems, and also notes that nations as varied as Australia, Chile, Sweden, and Hong Kong have implemented this pro-growth reform. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org
I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, “How do you hold down government spending?” Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.
(R Row, from front to rear) Milton Friedman, George Shultz, Pres. Ronald Reagan, Arthur Burns, William Simon and Walter Wriston & unknown at a meeting of White House economic advisers.
(Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)
All these liberals are out their wringing their hands about these upcoming cuts in spending, and they want to figure a way to get us to pay more to the government. Milton Friedman shows today in this post why we need to go back to the three essential functions of government that the founding fathers had in mind.
I really enjoy responding to Gene Lyons’ articles. He is very entertaining with his articles and he is a good respresentative of the liberal point of view. Since I am a conservative, it is rare when we agree.
Also contrary to Republican mythology, the infamous Bush tax cuts did anything but increase revenue, as tax cuts never do. As Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Bartlett shows, federal revenues dropped from 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000 to 18.5 percent in 2007.
She (Ruth Marcus) proceeds to correct Boehner on any number of factual mistakes, including the notion that economic growth doesn’t follow tax increases. See Bill Clinton, for one. And what about the idea that tax increases would increase the debt?
“A tax hike would wreak havoc not only on our economy’s ability to create private-sector jobs, but also on our ability to tackle the national debt.”
During the early 1980s, taxes were cut and public debt ballooned, from 26 percent of GDP in 1980 to 40 percent by 1986. In 1993, taxes were increased (and spending cut); debt as a share of the economy fell, from 49 percent to 33 percent. In 2001 and 2003, taxes were cut. By the time President Obama took office, debt had climbed to 40 percent of GDP.
Reagan Tax Cuts: In 1994 President Clinton’s own Council of Economic Advisers stated: “It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth.”
The Reagan tax cuts were followed by a sharp increase in revenue. Total federal revenue, including income tax revenue, rose every year from 1983 to 1988, after a dip in 1982 (due at least in part to the recession of that year–the recession began in December 1980 and ended in November 1982). From 1982 to 1989, i.e., when Reagan budgets were in operation, total federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion. (And herein by “in operation” I mean in effect for at least 10 months of a given year.)
Let’s look at what happened to federal income tax revenue under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, bearing in mind that Reagan slashed income tax rates across the board:
1983 — $326 billion
1984 — $355 billion
1985 — $396 billion
1986 — $412 billion
1987 — $476 billion
1988 — $496 billion
1989 — $549 billion
Why did the deficit increase under Reagan? The defense dept was built up and Congress increased spending in other areas of the federal government too.
In the 1980s, President Reagan successfully terminated only 12 of the 94 programs he proposed be eliminated. Congress would often block the terminations by negotiating slight reductions and lengthy phaseouts, waiting a few years for the President’s focus to shift elsewhere and then restoring the programs to their original funding.30
_______________________________
What Brantley and Lyons do not understand is very simple: We have a spending problem in Washington, not a lack of taxs!!!
There is a film series from 1980 that you simply have to check out. Today I have included some comments from Milton Friedman from his Film Series “Free to Choose: Episode 10 How to Stay Free,” which addresses several issues concerning how to control our spending.
Lawrence E. Spivak: Let’s go back to Jefferson. You say cut the functions of central government to the basic functions advocated by Jefferson which was what? Defense against foreign enemies, preserve order at home, and mediate our disputes. Now, can we do that in the complicated, the complex world we live in today, without getting into very serious trouble.
Friedman:Suppose we look at the activities of government in the complex world of today. And ask to what extent has the growth of government arisen because of those complexities? And the answer is, very little indeed. What is the area of government that has grown most rapidly? The taking of money from some people and the giving of it to others. The transfer area. HEW, a budget 1_1/2 times as large as a whole defense budget. That’s the area where government has grown. Now, in that area, the way in which technology has entered has not been by making certain functions of government necessary, but by making it possible for government to do things they couldn’t have done before. Without the modern computers, without modern methods of communication and transportation, it would be utterly impossible to administer the kind of big government we have now. So I would say that the relation between technology and government has been that technology has made possible big government in many areas, but it’s not required it.
_______________________________
There are so many excuses to raise government spending and taxes but we need to get back to the kind of government the founding fathers had in mind.
________________________________
Milton Friedman rightly said back in 1980 that we would much better off with a balanced budget amendment that would force government to live within their means. (Since then Friedman has called for an amendment that would limit the amount the government can tax and tie it to percentage of GNP.)
Friedman: Criminal tax evasion in Britain, laws and regulations defied in the U.S. It’s nothing to celebrate. The hopeful thing is that throughout the free world the public is coming to recognize the dangers of big government and is taking steps to control it. But it will be no easy task to cut government down to size. Today in country after country the strongest special interest has become the entrenched bureaucracy. Whether at the national or at the local level. In addition, each of us gets special benefits from one or another governmental program. The temptation is to try to cut down government at someone else’s expense while retaining our own special privileges. That was a stalemate. The right approach is to tackle head on the explosive growth in government spending. Lets give the government a budget the way each of us has a budget. A movement in this direction is already underway in the U.S. with the many proposals for Constitutional Amendments limiting government spending. Several states have already adopted such an amendment. There is strong pressure for a similar amendment at the federal level. Those amendments would force government to operate within a strict budget. Each special interest would have to compete with other special interests for a larger share of a fixed pie instead of all of them being able to join forces at the expense of the taxpayer.
This is an important step, but it is only a first step. No piece of paper by itself can solve our problems for us.
