Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 8)

Prince William (L) and Kate Middleton (R) during their wedding ceremony at Westminster Abbey in London, Britain, 29 April 2011. Westminster Abbey has a long tradition as a venue for royal weddings, going back to 1100. William’s grandparents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, exchanged their vows there in 1947.

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

I am in the middle of a series that will look at this issue of living together. It is based on the article “Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know about Cohabitation before Marriage,” by Josh McDowell. Here is a portion of the article below:

“Some Principles To Guide The Practice Of Cohabitation Before Marriage”

“Unmarried cohabitation has become a prominent feature of modern life and is undoubtedly here to stay in some form. The demographic, economic, and cultural forces of modern life would appear to be too strong to permit any society merely to turn back the clock, even if it so desired. Yet by all of the empirical evidence at our disposal, not to mention the wisdom of the ages, the institution of marriage remains a cornerstone of a successful society. And the practice of cohabitation, far from being a friend of marriage, looks more and more like its enemy. As a goal of social change, therefore, perhaps the best that we can hope for is to contain cohabitation in ways that minimize its damage to marriage.”

“With that goal in mind, are there any principles that we might give to young adults to guide their thinking about living together before marriage? In developing such principles it is important to note that, because men and women differ somewhat in their sexual and mate-selection strategies, cohabitation often has a different meaning for each sex. Women tend to see it as a step toward eventual marriage, while men regard it more as a sexual opportunity without the ties of long-term commitment. A woman’s willingness to cohabit runs the risk of sending men precisely the wrong signal. What our grandmothers supposedly knew might well be true: If a woman truly wants a man to marry her, wisdom dictates a measure of playing hard to get.”⁴⁷

“Pulling together what we know from recent social science research about cohabitation and its effects, here are four principles concerning living together before marriage that seem most likely to promote, or at least not curtail, long-term committed relationships among childrearing couples:”

“1. Consider not living together at all before marriage. Cohabitation appears not to be helpful and may be harmful as a try-out for marriage. There is no evidence that if you decide to cohabit before marriage you will have a stronger marriage than those who don’t live together, and some evidence to suggest that if you live together before marriage, you are more likely to break up after marriage. Cohabitation is probably least harmful (though not necessarily helpful) when it is prenuptial – when both partners are definitely planning to marry, have formally announced their engagement and have picked a wedding date.”

“2. Do not make a habit of cohabiting. Be aware of the dangers of multiple living together experiences, both for your own sense of well-being and for your chances of establishing a strong lifelong partnership. Contrary to popular wisdom, you do not learn to have better relationships from multiple failed cohabiting relationships. In fact, multiple cohabiting is a strong predictor of the failure of future relationships.”

“3. Limit cohabitation to the shortest possible period of time. The longer you live together with a partner, the more likely it is that the low-commitment ethic of cohabitation will take hold, the opposite of what is required for a successful marriage.”

“4. Do not cohabit if children are involved. Children need and should have parents who are committed to staying together over the long term. Cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents and the effects of breakup can be devastating and often long lasting. Moreover, children living in cohabiting unions are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence, including lethal violence, than are children living with married parents.”

“The National Marriage Project”

“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”

“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”

“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”

For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:

The National Marriage Project Rutgers
The State University of New Jersey
25 Bishop Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181
(732) 932-2722
marriage@rci.rutgers.edu

January, 1999

Benefits of Attending a Weekend to Remember

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (2 4)

Tim Hawkins talks about Moms

Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 5 of 7

April 30, 2011 | 2:33 pm

May 3, 2011 – 3:52 pm Categories: Adrian Rogers | Post a comment

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 37)

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 3:30pm CST on May 3, 2011.

Senator Rand Paul on Feb 7, 2011 wrote the article “A Modest $500 Billion Proposal: My spending cuts would keep 85% of government funding and not touch Social Security,” Wall Street Journal and he observed:

The Commerce Department is another prime example. Consistently labeled for elimination, specifically by House Republicans during the 1990s, one of Commerce’s main functions is delivering corporate welfare to American firms that can compete without it. My proposal would scale back the Commerce Department’s spending by 54% and eliminate corporate welfare.

My proposal would also cut wasteful spending in the Defense Department. Since 2001, our annual defense budget has increased nearly 120%. Even subtracting the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending is up 67%. These levels of spending are unjustifiable and unsustainable. Defense Secretary Robert Gates understands this and has called for spending cuts, saying “We must come to realize that not every defense program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred or well-spent, and more of everything is simply not sustainable.”

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

Forest Service: Reduced 20 percent

Similar to sections of the EPA, the Forest Service has been on the Government Accountability Office’s “high-risk” list for waste, fraud, and abuse. In recent years, Congress has provided the Forest Service with a nearly blank check to address forest fire issues. A strong step for reform would be to eliminate the federal forest subsidies and to start turning many of these forests over to the states or private interests. These states could maintain control over their forests, using them for timber, conservation, or recreation based upon the needs of the environment.

Commerce

Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease

Commerce $6.178 B $5.322 B 54%

The Department of Commerce has consistently been labeled for elimination, specifically by House Republicans during the 1990’s. Aside from a few research programs, the department’s main functions are associated with wasteful corporate welfare. The proposal would scale back the Department of Commerce by 54 percent, including additional cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the elimination of a large portion of corporate welfare.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Reduce 36 Percent

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was formed in 1970 to serve as both a physical and atmospheric science agency, as well as for the purpose of commercial fishery conservation. Yet according to the NOAA website, “Approximately 25 % of NOAA’s annual budget was committed to making progress in understanding the link between our global economy and our planet’s environment.”

NOAA, like most government agencies, has become bloated and its breadth and scope has broadened over the years. It is time for agencies to focus on the priorities for which they were intended.

May 3, 2011 – 3:46 pm Categories: Uncategorized | Post a comment

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 7)

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.

“Should Unmarried Cohabitation Be Institutionalized?”

“If marriage has been moving toward decreased social and legal recognition and control, cohabitation has moved in the opposite direction, steadily gaining social and legal identification as a distinct new institution. Cohabitation was illegal in all states prior to about 1970 and, although the law is seldom enforced, it remains illegal in a number of states. No state has yet established cohabitation as a legal relationship, but most states have now decriminalized ‘consensual sexual acts’ among adults, which include cohabitation.”

“In lieu of state laws, some marriage-like rights of cohabitors have gradually been established through the courts. The law typically comes into play, for example, when cohabitors who split up have disagreements about the division of property, when one of the partners argues that some kind of oral or implicit marriage-like contract existed, and when the courts accept this position. Whereas property claims by cohabitors traditionally have been denied on the ground that ‘parties to an illegal relationship do not have rights based on that relationship,’ courts have begun to rule more frequently that cohabitors do have certain rights based on such concepts as ‘equitable principles.’”⁴³

“The legal changes underway mean that cohabitation is becoming less of a ‘no-strings attached’ phenomenon, one involving some of the benefits of marriage with none of the costly legal procedures and financial consequences of divorce. In the most famous case, Marvin vs. Marvin, what the news media labeled ‘palimony’ in place of alimony was sought by a woman with whom Hollywood actor Lee Marvin lived for many years. The Supreme Court of California upheld the woman’s claim of an implied contract. Many states have not accepted key elements of the Marvin decision, and the financial award of palimony was eventually rejected on appeal. Yet the proposition that unmarried couples have the right to form contracts has come to be widely acknowledged.”

“In an attempt to reduce the uncertainties of the legal system, some cohabitors are now initiating formal ‘living together contracts.’⁴⁵ Some of these contracts state clearly, with the intent of avoiding property entanglements should the relationship break down, that the relationship is not a marriage but merely ‘two free and independent human beings who happen to live together.’ Others, in contrast, seek to secure the rights of married couples in such matters as inheritance and child custody. Marriage-like fiscal and legal benefits are also beginning to come to cohabiting couples. In the attempt to provide for gay and lesbian couples, for whom marriage is forbidden, many corporations, universities, municipalities, and even some states now provide “domestic partnership” benefits ranging from health insurance and pensions to the right to inherit the lease of a rent controlled apartment. In the process, such benefits have commonly been offered to unmarried heterosexual couples as well, one reason being to avoid lawsuits charging ‘illegal discrimination.’ Although the legal issues have only begun to be considered, the courts are likely to hold that the withholding of benefits from heterosexual cohabitors when they are offered to same-sex couples is a violation of U. S. laws against sex discrimination.”

“Religions have also started to reconsider cohabitation. Some religions have developed “commitment ceremonies” as an alternative to marriage ceremonies. So far these are mainly intended for same-sex couples and in some cases the elderly, but it seems only a matter of time before their purview is broadened.”

“Unlike in the United States, cohabitation has become an accepted new social institution in most northern European countries, and in several Scandinavian nations cohabitors have virtually the same legal rights as married couples. In Sweden and Denmark, for example, the world’s cohabitation leaders, cohabitors and married couples have the same rights and obligations in taxation, welfare benefits, inheritance, and child care. Only a few differences remain, such as the right to adopt children, but even that difference may soon disappear. Not incidentally, Sweden also has the lowest marriage rate ever recorded (and one of the highest divorce rates); an estimated 30% of all couples sharing a household in Sweden today are unmarried.⁴⁶ For many Swedish and Danish couples cohabiting has become an alternative rather than a prelude to marriage, and almost all marriages in these nations are now preceded by cohabitation.”

“Is America moving toward the Scandinavian family model? Sweden and Denmark are the world’s most secular societies, and some argue that American religiosity will work against increasing levels of cohabitation. Yet few religions prohibit cohabitation or even actively attempt to discourage it, so the religious barrier may be quite weak. Others argue that most Americans draw a sharper distinction than Scandinavians do between cohabitation and marriage, viewing marriage as a higher and more serious form of commitment. But as the practice of cohabitation in America becomes increasingly common, popular distinctions between cohabitation and marriage are fading. In short, the legal, social and religious barriers to cohabitation are weak and likely to get weaker. Unless there is an unexpected turnaround, America and the other Anglo countries, plus the rest of northern Europe, do appear to be headed in the direction of Scandinavia.”

“The institutionalization of cohabitation in the public and private sectors has potentially serious social consequences that need to be carefully considered. At first glance, in a world where close relationships are in increasingly short supply, why not recognize and support such relationships in whatever form they occur? Surely this is the approach that would seem to blend social justice and compassion with the goal of personal freedom. But is it not in society’s greater interest to foster long-term, committed relationships among childrearing couples? In this regard the advantages of marriage are substantial. It is only marriage that has the implicit long-term contract, the greater sharing of economic and social resources, and the better connection to the larger community.”

“The recognition and support of unmarried cohabitation unfortunately casts marriage as merely one of several alternative lifestyle choices. As the alternatives to it are strengthened, the institution of marriage is bound to weaken. After all, if cohabitors have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, why bother to marry? Why bother, indeed, if society itself expresses no strong preference one way or the other. It is simpler and less complicated to live together. The expansion of domestic partner benefits to heterosexual cohabiting couples, then, may be an easy way to avoid legal challenges, but the troubling issue arises: cities and private businesses that extend these benefits are in effect subsidizing the formation of fragile family forms. Even more troublingly, they are subsidizing family forms that pose increased risks of violence to women and children. While the granting of certain marriage-like legal rights to cohabiting couples may be advisable in some circumstances to protect children and other dependents in the event of couple break up, an extensive granting of such rights serves to undercut an essential institution that is already established to regulate family relationships. These issues, at the least, should cause us to proceed toward the further institutionalization of unmarried cohabitation only after very careful deliberation and forethought.”

43. Monica A. Seff. 1995. “Cohabitation and the Law.” Marriage and Family Review 21-3/4:141-165. p. 149.

44. Marvin vs. Marvin, 1976. California

45. Toni Ihara and Ralph Warner. 1997. The Living Together Kit: A Guide for Unmarried Couples. Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press, 8th edition. These contracts are not yet upheld by all states, and their enforceability is often in question.

46. Richard F. Tomasson. 1998. “Modern Sweden: The Declining Importance of Marriage.” Scandinavian Review August 1998:83-89. The marriage rate in the United States is two and a half times the Swedish rate.

“The National Marriage Project”

“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”

For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:

The National Marriage Project Rutgers
The State University of New Jersey
25 Bishop Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181
(732) 932-2722
marriage@rci.rutgers.edu

Tim Hawkins Things you don’t say to your wife

Official royal wedding photos: Prince William, Kate Middleton are all smiles [Poll]

The portraits, taken by their official photographer Hugo Burnand in the Buckingham Palace throne room, include three poses: A romantic image of the couple alone, a cheery ensemble picture of the pair with the children,

and one for the family album, featuring the bride and groom with the wedding party, their parents, siblings and of course William’s grandparents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.

Of course the monarchy in England no longer has the power that it used to. Now the power is with the house of commons. Likewise, in the USA President Obama and the Congress have all the power.

Monarchy The Royal Family at Work Part 4 of 7

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (1 4)

Weekend to Remember Story – Dennis Rainey

May 3, 2011 – 11:22 am Categories: Adrian Rogers, President Obama | Post a comment

Why do people move to other states to avoid Arkansas’ high state income tax? (If you love Milton Friedman then you will love this post)

Milton Friedman served as economic advisor for two American Presidents – Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Although Friedman was inevitably drawn into the national political spotlight, he never held public office.

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1

Mike Huckabee recently moved to Florida? Why? The answer is easy. Huckabee wants to avoid Arkansas’ high state income tax. Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times wants to call Huckabee a tax fugative, but who can blame him.

Liberals like Brantley and Ernie Dumas want to praise former Arkansas governor Dale Bumpers for raising the state income tax to 7%, but that is the reason our state has the highest state income tax in the area (all bordering states have either lower state income taxes or no state income tax).

Is it any suprise that during the last census that the seven states that do not have an income tax grew in population? Arkansas has suffered from bracket creep and in 1929 you had to make 5 times the average wage to pay any state income tax at all, but now over 66% of tax payers in Arkansas pay at least some of their income at the 7% level.

Take a look at all the Milton Friedman clips that I have posted today. These liberals I mentioned above have truly forgotten how powerful the market is if not interferred with by the government.

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 2

Ernie Dumas in his article “Arkansas” A tax myth-maker too,” Arkansas Times, April 13, 2011 asserts:

Until Gov. Dale Bumpers raised income-tax rates and other taxes in 1971, Arkansas had by far the lowest per-capita state and local taxes in the United States. Afterward, we were still 50th but within shouting distance of 49th.

Here are the real facts according to Greg Kaza of the Arkansas Policy Foundation:

(June 2006) Democratic Gov. Dale Bumpers and the General Assembly raised Arkansas’ top income tax rate to “broaden the tax base” in 1971(1). Yet Arkansas’ per capita income, expressed as a percentage of the U.S. total, has barely improved, moving from 71 (1971) to 77.7 percent (2005) over the 34-year period, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The 1971 income tax increase reversed a decades-long strong growth trend and left Arkansas with the highest income tax rate among bordering states (Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas).

Income Stagnation: The 1930s
One has to turn to the 1930s-the decade of the Great Depression-to find weaker income growth than in recent years.

Arkansas per capita personal income was 44 percent of the U.S. in 1929, the first year data was compiled in the BEA time series. The Great Depression started that year, and by the time it ended in 1933 Arkansas per capita income had fallen to 41 percent of the U.S. By decade’s end (1939) it had returned to 44 percent.

Growth Decades: The 1940s, 1950s & 1960s
Arkansas per capita income increased as a percentage of the U.S. in the next three decades.
In 1941, at the onset of World War II, Arkansas per capita income was 47 percent of the U.S. It was 59 percent at war’s end in 1945 and again in 1949. It was 56 percent in 1950, 62 percent a decade later in 1960, and 68 percent in 1969. If this growth rate had continued Arkansas would have exceeded 100 percent of the U.S. average in the current decade (2000-2009).

To summarize, Arkansas per capita income increased from 44 to 71 percent of the U.S. total between 1939 and 1971.

Anemic Income Growth (1971-2005)
The trend in recent decades is anemic growth in Arkansas per capita personal income. Fiscal policy changes effect economic behavior with a time lag. Arkansas per capita income was 71 percent of the U.S. in 1971 and 76 percent in 1973. Income growth stagnated for the rest of the decade, reaching 77 percent of the U.S. in 1979. It fell to 75 percent in 1989, and was 76 percent in 1999. Today, Arkansas per capita income, at 77.7 percent of the U.S., is barely above its high point of the 1970s.

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 3

Recently I read the report “A short history and recent trends in the Arkansas income tax,” by Richard Sims, Arkansas Business and Economic Review, December 22, 1993 and here is a portion of it:

Introduction

Since its introduction in 1929, Arkansas‘ statutory income tax structure has changed very little. However, due to changes in the economy and in inflation, the real effects of that tax structure have changed substantially. This report looks at the effects that rising incomes and inflation have had on the Arkansas income tax structure. In addition, the report looks at the changing profile of Arkansas taxpayers in recent years, and provides a brief comparison of Arkansas taxes in relation to other states and the federal tax system.

Arkansas‘ Income Tax Structure: Original and Revised

In 1929 Arkansas became 12th among the states to adopt an individual income tax. The structure contained five rates and net income brackets with a top rate of five percent applying to net income over $25,000. That original structure remained in place until 1971 when a new middle income bracket was added and the rate on net income over $25,000 was increased to 7.0 percent. The rates and brackets revised in 1971 remain in place today. The 1929 original and the revised current tax structure are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Arkansas Individual Income Tax Structure

 1929 Original Net Income Rate first $3,000 1.0% 
next$3,001 to $6,000  2.0% 
next$6,001 to $11,000 3.0% 
next $11,001 to $25,000  4.0% 
over $25,000 5.0% 
1971 Revision (Current) 
Net Income Rate first $2,999 1.0%
 next$3,000 to $5,999 2.5% 
next$6,000 to $8,999 3.5% 
next$9,000 to $14,999 4.5% 
next $15,000 to $24,999 6.0%
 over $25,000 7.0%

Source: Arkansas Legislative Tax Handbook, 1992, Bureau of Legislative Research.

In 1975, the earliest year for which records on income tax collections by income group is available, only the top 4.0 percent of Arkansas taxpayers would have had any of their income subjected to the top 7.0 percent rate. By 1991, around 66.0 percent of the state’s taxpayers would have had some of their income subjected to this top rate–a rate once reserved for only the highest income earners.

The 1929 tax structure provided for exemptions of $1,500 for a single person and $2,500 for married individuals. In 1947 the state raised the exemption to $2,500 for singles and $3,500 for married persons. In 1957 the personal exemption was converted to a credit of $17.50 for singles and $35.00 for married persons. In 1987 the credits were increased to $20 per person. Finally, in 1991, low income Arkansans were exempted from paying income tax if their gross income did not exceed $5,500 for an individual or $10,000 for a married couple. For most taxpayers, the $20.00 credit remains in effect today.

The Value of Exemptions as a Share of Per Capita Income

Table 2 shows how the value of the personal tax exemption or credit has diminished over time. The figures shown represent the personal exemption or credit for a single individual as a ratio of the per capita personal income in the year in which the credit was first enacted. In 1929, for instance, an individual would have been exempted from any tax until their income reached a level which was equal to 490 percent of the Arkansas per capita income for that year. In 1947 with the first statutory change in the exemption, that individual would have still been exempted up to an amount equal to 340 percent of the per capita income level. By 1957 the value of the exemption (which was changed to a tax credit that year) had declined substantially, falling to 130 percent of per capita income. At the time of the next change in the personal credit (1987), the value of that credit was only 17 percent of the per capita income level. For most taxpayers (all those not officially classified as low income) in 1992, the value of the personal credit was only 13 percent of per capita income.

Table 2 Personal Exemptions and Credits As a Percent of Per Capita Income

 Arkansas Year of Value of Per Capita Enactment ExemptionIncome Ratio 1929 $1,500 $ 308 490% 19472,500 737 340% 19571,6001,247 130% 19872,000 11,980 17% 19922,000 15,439 13%

Source: Arkansas Legislative Tax Handbook, 1992, Bureau of Legislative Research; Per capita personal income data is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, unpublished data, April, 1993.

In other words, whereas in the first year of enactment of the income tax, the personal exemption would have allowed an Arkansan to earn almost five times the average per capita income before paying any tax.

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 4

____________________________________

In his article “Census: Fast growth in states with no income tax,” Washington Examiner, Dec 21, 2011, Michael Barone noted:

For those of us who are demographic buffs, Christmas came four days early when Census Bureau director Robert Groves announced on Tuesday the first results of the 2010 census and the reapportionment of House seats (and therefore electoral votes) among the states.

The resident population of the United States, he told us in a webcast, was 308,745,538. That’s an increase of 9.7 percent from the 281,421,906 in the 2000 census — the smallest proportional increase than in any decade other than the Depression 1930s but a pretty robust increase for an advanced nation. It’s hard to get a grasp on such large numbers. So let me share a few observations on what they mean.

First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.

Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.

There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.

This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 5

May 3, 2011 – 8:46 am Categories: Mike Huckabee, Milton Friedman | Post a comment

The process of finding Osama:”Ghul was the linchpin,” a U.S. official said, the CIA identified the courier’s real name: Sheikh Abu Ahmed

Inconceivable Osama had no support in Pakistan ...

A drawing, released by the United State Department of Defense May 2, 2011, shows the compound that Osama bin Laden was killed in on Monday in Abbottabad,Pakistan

Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo of the Associated Press reported this morning:

When one of Osama bin Laden’s most trusted aides picked up the phone last year, he unknowingly led U.S. pursuers to the doorstep of his boss, the world’s most wanted terrorist.

That monitored phone call, recounted Monday by a U.S. official, ended a years-long search for bin Laden’s personal courier, the key break in a worldwide manhunt. The courier, in turn, led U.S. intelligence to a walled compound in northeast Pakistan, where a team of Navy SEALs shot bin Laden to death.

The violent final minutes were the culmination of years of intelligence work. Inside the CIA team hunting bin Laden, it always was clear that bin Laden’s vulnerability was his couriers. He was too smart to let al-Qaida foot soldiers, or even his senior commanders, know his hideout. But if he wanted to get his messages out, somebody had to carry them, someone bin Laden trusted with his life.

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, detainees in the CIA’s secret prison network told interrogators about an important courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was close to bin Laden. After the CIA captured al-Qaida’s No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he confirmed knowing al-Kuwaiti but denied he had anything to do with al-Qaida.

Then in 2004, top al-Qaida operative Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was a courier, someone crucial to the terrorist organization. In particular, Ghul said, the courier was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced Mohammed as al-Qaida’s operational commander. It was a key break in the hunt for in bin Laden’s personal courier.

“Hassan Ghul was the linchpin,” a U.S. official said.

Finally, in May 2005, al-Libi was captured. Under CIA interrogation, al-Libi admitted that when he was promoted to succeed Mohammed, he received the word through a courier. But he made up a name for the courier and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti, a denial that was so adamant and unbelievable that the CIA took it as confirmation that he and Mohammed were protecting the courier. It only reinforced the idea that al-Kuwaiti was very important to al-Qaida.

If they could find the man known as al-Kuwaiti, they’d find bin Laden.

The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA’s so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.

“We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day,” said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.

Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

It took years of work before the CIA identified the courier’s real name: Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a Pakistani man born in Kuwait. When they did identify him, he was nowhere to be found. The CIA’s sources didn’t know where he was hiding. Bin Laden was famously insistent that no phones or computers be used near him, so the eavesdroppers at the National Security Agency kept coming up cold.

Ahmed was identified by detainees as a mid-level operative who helped al-Qaida members and their families find safe havens. But his whereabouts were such a mystery to U.S. intelligence that, according to Guantanamo Bay documents, one detainee said Ahmed was wounded while fleeing U.S. forces during the invasion of Afghanistan and later died in the arms of the detainee.

But in the middle of last year, Ahmed had a telephone conversation with someone being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. Ahmed was located somewhere away from bin Laden’s hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch Ahmed.

In August 2010, Ahmed unknowingly led authorities to a compound in the northeast Pakistani town of Abbottabad, where al-Libi had once lived. The walls surrounding the property were as high as 18 feet and topped with barbed wire. Intelligence officials had known about the house for years, but they always suspected that bin Laden would be surrounded by heavily armed security guards. Nobody patrolled the compound in Abbottabad.

In fact, nobody came or went. And no telephone or Internet lines ran from the compound. The CIA soon believed that bin Laden was hiding in plain sight, in a hideout especially built to go unnoticed. But since bin Laden never traveled and nobody could get onto the compound without passing through two security gates, there was no way to be sure.

Despite that uncertainty, intelligence officials realized this could represent the best chance ever to get to bin Laden. They decided not to share the information with anyone, including staunch counterterrorism allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia.

By mid-February, the officials were convinced a “high-value target” was hiding in the compound. President Barack Obama wanted to take action.

“They were confident and their confidence was growing: ‘This is different. This intelligence case is different. What we see in this compound is different than anything we’ve ever seen before,'” John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, said Monday. “I was confident that we had the basis to take action.”

Options were limited. The compound was in a residential neighborhood in a sovereign country. If Obama ordered an airstrike and bin Laden was not in the compound, it would be a huge diplomatic problem. Even if Obama was right, obliterating the compound might make it nearly impossible to confirm bin Laden’s death.

Said Brennan, “The president had to evaluate the strength of that information, and then made what I believe was one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory.”

Brennan told CNN Tuesday that “there was no single piece of information that was an ‘ah-hah’ moment.” He said officials took “bits and pieces” of intelligence gathered and analyzed over a long period of time to nail down the leads they needed.

Obama tapped two dozen members of the Navy’s elite SEAL Team Six to carry out a raid with surgical accuracy.

Before dawn Monday morning, a pair of helicopters left Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. The choppers entered Pakistani airspace using sophisticated technology intended to evade that country’s radar systems, a U.S. official said.

Officially, it was a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn’t kill unarmed people trying to surrender. But it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering, two U.S. officials said.

The helicopters lowered into the compound, dropping the SEALs behind the walls. No shots were fired, but shortly after the team hit the ground, one of the helicopters came crashing down and rolled onto its side for reasons the government has yet to explain. None of the SEALs was injured, however, and the mission continued uninterrupted.

With the CIA and White House monitoring the situation in real time — presumably by live satellite feed or video carried by the SEALs — the team stormed the compound.

Thanks to sophisticated satellite monitoring, U.S. forces knew they’d likely find bin Laden’s family on the second and third floors of one of the buildings on the property, officials said. The SEALs secured the rest of the property first, then proceeded to the room where bin Laden was hiding. A firefight ensued, Brennan said.

Ahmed and his brother were killed, officials said. Then, the SEALs killed bin Laden with a bullet just above his left eye, blowing off part his skull, another official said. Using the call sign for his visual identification, one of the soldiers communicated that “Geronimo” had been killed in action, according to a U.S. official.

Bin Laden’s body was immediately identifiable, but the U.S. also conducted DNA testing that identified him with near 100 percent certainty, senior administration officials said. Photo analysis by the CIA, confirmation on site by a woman believed to be bin Laden’s wife, who was wounded, and matching physical features such as bin Laden’s height all helped confirm the identification. At the White House, there was no doubt.

“I think the accomplishment that very brave personnel from the United States government were able to realize yesterday is a defining moment in the war against al-Qaida, the war on terrorism, by decapitating the head of the snake known as al-Qaida,” Brennan said.

U.S. forces searched the compound and flew away with documents, hard drives and DVDs that could provide valuable intelligence about al-Qaida, a U.S. official said. The entire operation took about 40 minutes, officials said.

Bin Laden’s body was flown to the USS Carl Vinson in the North Arabian sea, a senior defense official said. There, aboard a U.S. warship, officials conducted a traditional Islamic burial ritual. Bin Laden’s body was washed and placed in a white sheet. He was placed in a weighted bag that, after religious remarks by a military officer, was slipped into the sea about 2 a.m. EDT Monday.

This Monday, May 2, 2011 satellite image provided by GeoEye shows the compound, center, in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden lived. Bin Laden, the face of global terrorism and mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was tracked down and shot to death at the compound by an elite team of U.S. forces, ending an unrelenting manhunt that spanned a frustrating decade.

Terrorist’s burial at sea was done in accordance with Muslim law.

May 3, 2011 – 7:51 am Categories: President Obama | Post a comment

Inside the Situation Room with President Obama as they watched live the operation to take out Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, the elusive terror mastermind killed by Navy SEALs in an intense firefight, was hunted down based on information first gleaned years ago from detainees at secret CIA prison sites.

Picture below from the Tolbert Report:

President Barack Obama (2nd L) and Vice President Joe Biden (L), along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission againstOsama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Also pictured are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2nd R) and Defense Secretary Robert Gates (R). Please note: A classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured at source. REUTERS/White House/Pete Souza/Handout« Read less

In this image released by the White House and digitally altered by the source to diffuse the paper in front of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with 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

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama listens during one in a series of meetings discussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, in the Situation Room of the White HouseMay 1, 2011

U.S. President Barack Obama talks with members of the national security team at the conclusion of one in a series of meetings discussing the mission againstOsama bin Laden, in the Situation Room of the White House May 1, 2011. Picture taken May 1, 2011.

Michael Scherer of Time Magazine reported yesterday:

The people who gathered Sunday in the Situation Room know all about high-pressure situations. But this was something else. 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. At Barack Obama’s orders, special operations teams were invading the airspace of a foreign country, targeting a compound with unknown occupants, and hoping to get out unscathed. The target was America’s No. 1 enemy, Osama bin Laden. But no one knew for sure if he was even there.

The President sat stone-faced through much of the events. Several of his aides, however, were pacing. For long periods of time, nobody said a thing, as everyone waited for the next update. In the modern age, Presidents can experience their own military actions like a video game, except that they have no control over the events. They cannot, and would not, intervene to contact the commanders running the operation. So when word came that a helicopter had been grounded, a sign that the plan was already off course, the tension increased. (See pictures of Osama bin Laden’s Pakistan hideout.)

Minutes later, more word came over the transom. “We’ve IDed Geronimo,” said a disembodied voice, using the agreed-upon code name for America’s most wanted enemy, Osama bin Laden. Word then came that Geronimo had been killed. Only when the last helicopter lifted off some minutes later did the President know that his forces had sustained no casualties. (See pictures of people celebrating Osama bin Laden’s death.)

The decision to attack had been made days earlier by the President. He gathered his senior intelligence, military and diplomatic team together in the Situation Room on Thursday afternoon to hear his options. There were already concerns about operational security. At that point, hundreds of people had already been read into the potential whereabouts of bin Laden. Any leak would have ruined the entire mission.

The intelligence professionals said they did not know for sure that bin Laden was in the compound. Obama went around the table asking everyone to state their opinion. He quizzed his staff about worst case scenarios – the possibility of civilian casualties, a hostage situation, a diplomatic blow-up with Pakistan, a downed helicopter. He was presented with three options: Wait to gather more intelligence, attack with targeted bombs from the air, or go in on the ground with troops. The room was divided about 50-50, said a person in the room. John Brennan, the President’s senior counter-terrorism adviser, supported a ground strike, as did the operational people, including Leon Panetta at the CIA. Others called for more time. In the end, about half of the senior aides supported a helicopter assault. The other half said either wait, or strike from above. (See TIME’s al-Qaeda covers.)

Obama left the meeting without signaling his intent. He wanted to sleep on it. At about 8:00 a.m. on Friday, just before he boarded a helicopter that would take him to tour tornado damage in Alabama, Obama called his senior aides into the Diplomatic Room. He told them his decision: A helicopter assault. At that point, the operation was taken out of his hands. He was trusting the fate of his presidency to luck. He was putting his presidency in the hands of history.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks on the phone in the Oval Office before making a statement to the media about the mission against Osama bin Laden, atthe White House May 1, 2011. The president made a series of calls to former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and others to inform them of the successful mission. Picture taken May 1, 2011.

In this image released by the White House, from left, James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, CIA DirectorLeon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden listen as President Barack Obama delivers a televised speech from the East Room at the White House in Washington on Sunday, May 1, 2011,

In this image released by the White House and digitally altered by the source to diffuse the paper in front of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton,President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with 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, Sunday, May 1, 2011, in Washington

In this image released by the White House, President Barack Obama makes a point during one in a series of meetings in the Situation Room of the White Housediscussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, Sunday, May 1, 2011. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon is pictured at right

______________________________________

A crowd of hundreds celebrated out front of the White House after President Obama announced the death of al Qaeda figurehead Osama bin Laden. Chip Reid reports.

May 3, 2011 – 7:01 am Categories: President Obama | Post a comment

Pat Lynch: We need to bring tax rates back up for Rich (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 10)(If you love Milton Friedman then you will love this post)

The liberal Pat Lynch in his article “Worry Inc.” Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, April 4, 2011 commented:

While the budget cutters are busy going after programs that help mere citizens, any notion of bringing taxrates for the wealthy back to the levels of the Clinton era, when there was a federal surplus, is off the table.

Liberals always think they can raise the taxes on the rich and everything else will take care of itself. The problem with our deficit is not that the politicians need more money but they need to spend less. I heard Congressman Tim Griffin say that at a townhall meeting a couple of weeks ago.

Brian Riedl is the author of the article “The Three Biggest Myths About Tax Cuts and the Budget Deficit,” (Heritage Foundation, June 21, 2010), and the next few days I will be sharing portions of his article.

Before coming to Heritage in 2001, Riedl worked for then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, former Rep. Mark Green (R-WI)., and the Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly. Riedl holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and political science from the University of Wisconsin, and a master’s degree in public affairs from Princeton University.

Growing long-term budget deficits are exclusively the result of rising spending, not declining revenues. Thus, common sense suggests that most reforms should occur on the spending side. Given the magnitude of the long-term spending increase, even splitting the difference between spending cuts and tax increases would leave the highest sustained spending—and tax burden—in American history. Permanently transforming the federal government in this manner would slow economic growth and harm families and businesses.

Rapid growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs and interest payments on the national debt will cause virtually all of this new spending. The annual cost of these four expenditures will surge from $1.6 trillion this year to $3.5 trillion in 2020. This will cause massive budget deficits in the next decade and must be the focus of any serious effort to reduce the budget deficit.

Obviously the real problem is spending and not that taxes are not high enough!!!! Take a look at this clip from Milton Friedman:

An ever-combative champion of freedom, Milton Friedman’s career and contributions in defense of individual liberty are unique in our time

__________________________________________

May 2, 2011 – 4:12 pm Categories: Famous Arkansans, Milton Friedman | Post a comment

George Washington at 279 (Born Feb 22, 1732) Part 12

Steeling the Mind Bible Conference pt 4 of 6 David Barton

In Washington’s own words:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by our justice, shall counsel.

Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In the next few days I will post portions of George Washington’s farewell speech (which really was just a newspaper article) but since it is so long I will put an outline of the speech that is provided by David Barton of Wallbuilders.

“Foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.”
“The great rule of conduct for us”: “as little political connection as possible.”
1. we should fulfill obligations, then stop
2. we should not get involved in Europe’s affairs.
Our “detached and distant situation . . . enables . . . a different course.”
“Steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
However, we may have “temporary alliances, for extraordinary emergencies.”
Maintain “a liberal intercourse with all nations.”
n pictures: Japan earthquake and tsunami

In association with

Houses in Natori were caught as a wall of water up to 10m (33ft) high in some places swept inland.

May 2, 2011 – 4:00 pm Categories: David Barton, Founding Fathers | Post a comment

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 36)

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 3:30 pm CST on May 2, 2011.

Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion.

My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity. But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt. It would keep 85% of our government funding in place and not touch Social Security or Medicare. But by reducing wasteful spending and shuttering departments that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as the Department of Education, we can cut nearly 40% of our projected deficit and at the same time remove thousands of big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency.

View Full Image

Images.com/Corbis

RandPaul

Examples of federal waste are more abundant than ever. For example, the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons activities should be placed under the purview of the Department of Defense. Many of its other activities amount to nothing more than corporate handouts. It provides research grants and subsidies to energy companies for the development of new, cleaner forms of energy. This means nearly all forms of energy development here in the U.S. are subsidized by the federal government, from oil and coal to nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels. These subsidies often go to research and companies that can survive without them. This drives up the cost of energy for all Americans, both as taxpayers and consumers.

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

Agriculture Research Service: Eliminated

Per the CATO Institute: “Most American industries fund their own research and development programs. The agriculture industry is a notable exception. USDA spends about $3 billion annually on agricultural research, statistical information services, and economic studies.”

Agriculture, like all other industries can perform its own research and development without the use of federal subsidies to do so. The research done by USDA is there to keep the status quo.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture: Eliminated

National Institute of Food and Agriculture is the parent agency to the Agriculture Research Service. NIFA is essentially the communications arm to spread ARS information to the public. The department’s main area of study is responding to “quality-of-life problems” – (1) Improving agricultural productivity, (2) Creating new products, (3) Protecting animal and plant health, (4) Promoting sound human nutrition and health, (5) Strengthening children, youth, and families, (6) Revitalizing rural American communities.

When looking at their main focus issues, we can see that like ARS, government and its subsidiaries are in the business of keeping the status quo and stifle real research and development.

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Eliminated

This issue is best left up to the states to determine what the best way is to preserve and protect their environment.

The balance of using the resources available for production, conservation, and recreation is best decided by from people in the region.

Foreign Agricultural Services: Eliminated

Originally, this agency was created to manage our agricultural trade agreements and the daily/weekly prices of agriculture commodities across the globe. In a world of constant information, we do not need this program putting out daily reports regarding the fluctuations of commodity prices.

May 2, 2011 – 3:48 pm Categories: Uncategorized | Post a comment

John Brummett:Cause of deficit is we don’t tax rich enough (Real Cause of Deficit Pt 9)(Famous Arkansan Wayne Jackson)

John Brummett asserts that liberals are right about the cause of the deficit. He asserts in his article “Harry let us down,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 4, 2011:

He is right that the actual deficit is caused by direct government spending exceeding income, an imbalance mostly caused, he will tell you with some justification, by the fact that we don’t tax rich people as much as we did in happier and more prosperous times.

We have heard the liberals like John Brummett say for years that Bush put us into this horrible position of deficits because of his tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. However, if Bush was responsible for taking the 236 billion surplus he inherited in 2000 and turning everything downward because of the tax cuts, then why did we only have a budget deficit of 161 billion in 2007?

Brian Riedl is The Heritage Foundation’s lead budget analyst and has built a solid reputation for interpreting, explaining and reforming the often arcane realm of federal budget policy.

Splitting the Difference or Addressing the Source

Having established that spending is causing the expanding long-term budget deficits, the next question is how to fix that problem. Lawmakers seeking deficit reduction will not find any easy targets. Defenders of each spending program will surely claim some special status that should exempt their program from reforms. Defenders of current tax policies will point out the negative economic consequences of large tax hikes. As the debate proceeds, two competing reform frameworks will likely emerge:

A “split the difference” approach that closes half the gap with tax increases and half with spending cuts; and
An “address the source” approach that targets the policies that are actually driving the deficit up.

Most people argue that the “split the difference” approach seems moderate and reasonable. By reforming all tax and spending policies equally, Congress would not single out any one policy. Conservatives and liberals could compromise in a bipartisan show of strength. However, politicians should not take the path of least resistance with a problem of this significance. A solution sustainable over the long term must address the budget deficit at the source. After all, when a family purchases a larger home than it can afford, the proper response is not to obtain second jobs, put the kids to work, and drastically cut back on groceries, electricity, and medical care. The proper response is to address the source of financial distress by moving back to a smaller home.

Similarly, the nation’s rising long-term budget deficits are almost exclusively the result of Washington making entitlement commitments that the nation cannot afford. Therefore, the presumption must be to pare back these commitments to an affordable level. Yet “split the difference” essentially lets most of the entitlement spending growth off the hook and passes a significant burden onto taxpayers and onto federal programs that have succeeded without raising costs. With Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs projected to rise by 10 percent of GDP by 2050,[18] splitting the difference would still require by far the largest tax increase in American history, leaving spending and taxes at levels never seen before during peacetime. It would allow expanding entitlement programs to transform the entire federal budget.

This approach is also unsustainable over the long run. Even if lawmakers broadly raise taxes and reduce spending to balance the budget in the short run, their failure to address the problem at its source means that entitlement costs will likely continue to grow quickly. This would in turn require continuous additional spending cuts and tax hikes elsewhere to keep the budget under control.

Finally, splitting the difference sends the wrong message to future lawmakers by rewarding policies that aggressively increase the short-term budget deficit. Liberal lawmakers could enact large new spending bills without paying for them, believing that much of the future deficit reduction will be split across tax hikes and other spending programs, effectively locking in much of the targeted spending increase—the “feed the beast” strategy. Conservative lawmakers could deeply cut taxes without paying for them on the assumption that half of the resulting deficits will eventually be closed by spending cuts—the “starve the beast” strategy. In either case, the “split the difference” approach to deficit reduction would sacrifice other budget priorities to make room for the new, unaffordable policy.

____________________________________

I am doing a series on famous Arkansans and today is the last part on Wayne Jackson who grew up in West Memphis. He worked with many famous groups such as U2. Below you will see a song he worked on with them “Where the streets have no name.”

Wayne Jackson

Inducted in 2008

(b. 1941) – Wayne Jackson grew up in West Memphis playing the guitar. He found his true passion at age 11 when his mother brought home a trumpet. When he was in the 12th grade his love for music took him across the Mississippi River to Memphis, where he became a legendary backup trumpeter in such groups as the Mar-Keys, and would go on to perform with a who’s who of artists. He has played on recordings by Aretha Franklin, Sting, Elvis Presley, U2, Peter Gabriel, Willie Nelson, Billy Joel, Otis Redding, The Doobie Brothers, Jimmy Buffet and Rod Stewart. Jackson was the co-founder, with Andrew Love of the legendary Memphis backing band, of The Memphis Horns. He has performed on 52 number one hits, 83 Gold & Platinum albums, 115 top-ten records and 15 Grammy award winners. Recently, he recorded the new James Bond theme song for “A Quantum of Solace” with Alicia Keys and Jack White.

May 2, 2011 – 3:42 pm Categories: Famous Arkansans | Post a comment

	SLIMJIM on FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART…
	mosckerr on RFK Jr: “If Trump is kep…
	mosckerr on “Now whether the 14th Am…
	Everette Hatcher III on “Now whether the 14th Am…
	Everette Hatcher III on RFK Jr: “If Trump is kep…

The Daily Hatch