Supreme Court never said It.

1 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

2 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American

Heritage Series / David Barton

4 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

5 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

__________________________________________

3 Of 3 / Faith Of The Founding Fathers / American Heritage Series / David Barton

__________________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

___________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 2 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

___________________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 3 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

___________________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 4 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

______________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 5 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. These unconfirmed quotes are used every single day and unfortunately my group of conservatives have been guilty of using them more than the liberals have. This website HALT (HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com) includes the T for the word ‘truth.” I want to always tell it like it is and that includes this fact: Conservative Republicans will be more likely than their liberal counterparts to  stand up today in state legislatures all across the country and use quotes that have not been confirmed with original sources linking them to the Founding Fathers.
This first quote I will look at has been on David Barton’s Unconfirmed List for about 20 years but it was confirmed about 7 years ago but it turned out not to be a Supreme Court Case but a lower court case.
 

3. Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian. — Holy Trinity v. U. S. (Supreme Court) (inaccurate confirmed! — Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme Court, 1883) 

This quotation appeared in many modern works, each attributing the wording to the U. S. Supreme Court’s 1892 decision in the Holy Trinity case. After researching and being unable to locate this quote in that case, we concluded that it was probably was a cut-and-paste typographical error, for several of the phrases do appear in that case, (10. For example, “These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States; 143 U. S. 457, 471 (1892).

)but not in the exact wording given above; we therefore at that time recommended that this quote not be used. Now, however, after more than a decade of searching, we have located and confirmed the original source for this quote: it appears not in an 1892 U. S. Supreme Court case

( 11. Justice David J. Brewer, author of the 1892 Holy Trinity opinion, also wrote a book in 1905 called The United States: A Christian Nation. Brewer opened his work with these words: “We classify nations in various ways. As, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation-in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.” David J. Brewer, The United States A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), pp. 11-12. )

but rather in an 1883 Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Richmond v. Moore. ( 12. Richmond v. Moore, 107 Ill. 429, 1883 WL 10319 (Ill.), 47 Am.Rep. 445 (Ill. 1883).) While we previously recommended against using this quote, it is now authenticated and can be cited, providing that it is attributed to the proper source.

Pryor hypocritical about Judge Delays?

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

Senator Graham and Elena Kagan discuss Former Nominee Miguel Estrada

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

On December 24, the Arkansas Times Blog reported:

The Senate ended its lame duck session Wednesday without confirming Fort Smith attorney Paul K. Holmes as a federal judge in Arkansas’s western district.Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said he was disappointed that Holmes’ nomination did not clear the Senate during the 111th Congress.

Paul Greenberg in the editorial “Dept. of Hypocrisy: Mark Pryor’s Selective Outrage,”  (May 3, 2010) pointed out that Pryor was angry that Republicans were holding up the  President’s picks for the federal bench. “There’s just no place for this in the Senate,” he huffs. “There’s no place just to play partisan political games with these judicial appointments.” Greenberg went on to show how hypocritical this was of Pryor.

I wish the Republicans would not play politics like this and I do not condone it at all. However, to call Pryor and Lincoln hypocrites concerning the Miguel Estrada matter is correct too. Both Pryor and Lincoln claimed that Estrada would not answer questions they needed answered, but in March of 2003 all 100 senators were sent a letter from the Bush White House inviting any senator who had doubts about Estrada’s views to send him written questions.

“He would answer the questions forthrightly, appropriately, and in a manner consistent with the traditional practice and obligations of judicial nominees, as he has before,” wrote White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. Did the White House receive any responses from Pryor and Lincoln? The answer is no.
Later both Lincoln and Pryor released statements saying that Estrada had not been willing to answer their questions. In fact, Pryor said, “I am deeply disturbed with the number of unanswered questions that remain about Mr. Miguel Estrada and am troubled by his unwillingness to answer questions posed to him.”

I agree that partisan politics should end, but I also must point out that both Lincoln and Pryor are being hypocritical.

Lots of Fake Quotes of Founding Fathers in Circulation

1 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

2 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American

Heritage Series / David Barton

4 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

5 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

__________________________________________

3 Of 3 / Faith Of The Founding Fathers / American Heritage Series / David Barton

__________________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

___________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 2 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

___________________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 3 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

___________________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 4 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

______________________

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 5 of 5

Uploaded by on Apr 9, 2010

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

 

___

I wanted to thank Gene Lyons for bringing this issue of fake quotes of the Founding Fathers to our attention because it should be addressed.

In April 8, 2010 article “Facts Drowning in Disinformation,” he rightly notes that Thomas Jefferson never said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” However, where the liberal Lyons is wrong is that he fails to look at Jefferson’s other writings to see if this principle is there.

Doesn’t Jefferson’s comment in a prospectus for his translation of Destutt de Tracy’s Treatise on Political Economy make the same point?: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.’

Here Jefferson makes the same point but he fails to say that “democracy will cease to exist.” However, he does establish the fact that he believed firmly  that people should enjoy the results of their hard work.

When it comes to this issue of fake quotes, I do have an advantage. I had a long term friendship with the late Professor John George of the University of Central Oklahoma political science department and coauthor (with Paul Boller, Jr.) of the book They Never Said It! (Oxford University Press, 1989).

In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. These unconfirmed quotes are used every single day and unfortunately my group of conservatives have been guilty of using them more than the liberals have. This website HALT (HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com) includes the T for the word ‘truth.”

I want to always tell it like it is and that includes this fact: Conservative Republicans will be more likely than their liberal counterparts to  stand up today in state legislatures all across the country and use quotes that have not been confirmed with original sources linking them to the Founding Fathers.

David Barton has put together a list of unconfirmed quotes that are commonly used, and this list has been researched over the last 30 years by Barton and some of the quotes on the list have since been verified. However, Barton recommends not using these quotes until they are verified. Yet so many politicians (unfortunately  most of them have been conservatives) have continued to use these unconfirmed quotes in their speeches and books.

David Barton has done a great job of going through the history of the lives of our founding fathers. Below you will see a film clip from Mike Huckabee’s show where David Barton talks about the religious backgrounds of many of our founding fathers.

Related posts:

Unconfirmed Quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 6 David Barton:Were the Founding Fathers Deists? In 1988 only 25% of Christians voted but that doubled in 1994. Christians are the salt of the world. The last few days I have been  looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

Two Unconfirmed quotes attributed to Noah Webster

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 5 David Barton: Were the Founding Fathers Deists? First Bible printed in USA was printed by our founding fathers for use in the public schools. 20,000 Bibles. 10 commandments hanging in our courthouses. The last few days I have been  looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

Unconfirmed Quote attibuted to Patrick Henry

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 4 David Barton: Were Founding Fathers Deists? Only 5% of the original 250 founding fathers were not Christians (Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Joe Barlow, Charles Lee, Henry Dearborn, ect) In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

Samuel Adams Unconfirmed Quote was Confirmed Eventually

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 3 David Barton: Were Founding Fathers Deists? American Bible Society filled with Founding Fathers Here is another in the series of  unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. David Barton has collected these quotes and tried to confirm them over the last 20 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

Unconfirmed Quote attributed to Ben Franklin

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 2 David Barton on Founding Fathers were they deists? Not James Wilson and William Samuel Johnson In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. David Barton has collected these quotes and […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

Unconfirmed Quote attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville

HALT: HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 1 David Barton: Were the Founding Fathers Deists? Religious holidays, Court cases, punishing kids in school for praying in Jesus name In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. David […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

Supreme Court never said It.

Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth David Barton goes through American History and looks at some of the obscure names in our history and how prayer and Bible Study affected some of our founding fathers In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

Lots of Fake Quotes of Founding Fathers in Circulation

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth   ___ I wanted to thank Gene Lyons for bringing this issue of fake quotes of the Founding Fathers to our attention because it should be addressed. In April 8, 2010 article “Facts Drowning in Disinformation,” he rightly notes that Thomas Jefferson never said, “The democracy will cease to […]

Hillary Clinton :Take from Rich and give to Poor

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

Back in 2004 at a democratic fundraiser, Senator Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters – some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend – to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.


“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

In April of 2010 President Obama went off the teleprompter in his speech to a Quincy, Illinois audience about Wall Street reform and noted, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

In Milton Friedman’s series FREE TO CHOOSE there is an episode called, “Created Equal.” Basically Friedman says that we have equality before God because we are human beings with dignity. Also in the USA we all have equality of rights under the law. However, there are those who want to try to make the equality of outcome an issue and that has always been met with disastrous consequences.

This is how the late comedian Steve Allen put it in the introduction to the 30 minute episode by Milton Friedman:

Hello there, as they used to say in television. I am Steve Allen. If you don’t know that, it is not going to be a big deal anyway. Millions of people are willing to spend money to be entertained. You spend a few dollars on a record, a theater concert ticket, and Michael Jackson becomes a millionaire. I think that is a nice arrangement for you as well as for Michael Jackson, and for me too. Of course, you also have some special talents, whatever the job. If you do it well, you make life better for yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

With a free market, our income is dependent on how much training we might have had, how well we do our job, and the scarcity of what we have to offer. Lucky for me there weren’t too many other Steve Allens around. But equal opportunity __ that is the American dream. That is a market economy as Milton Friedman explained earlier in the series.

Over the years I have asked Milton for advice in understanding a number of aspects involved in economics and politics. He is a great teacher and, of course, a defender of freedom and individual rights. On the other hand, there are people who think Michael Jackson and others who earn astronomical incomes, should be prevented from doing so. They think it would be better off if income/wealth were shared, more or less, evenly. As a bare, abstract idea, there is something appealing about that. Michael obviously doesn’t need to earn fifty or one hundred million a year, and there are certainly those who have practically no money at all. So, as I say, there have been philosophers over the centuries who have tried to diminish poverty by limiting the income at the top end of the scale. The problem with that admittedly charming idea is that it has never worked.

The Pilgrims tried a form of socialism over 300 years ago. Unfortunately for their fair minded plans, they prospered only after they were allowed to keep for themselves all the food they grew, and to use it or sell it as they saw fit.

Now to turn back the clock to the early days of the communist revolution in Russia, the basic aim again was the share the wealth. But again it didn’t work. It had to be enforced with harsh laws, machine guns and barbed wire. In terms of pure economics, it was a failure. The end result was near poverty for all.

So what human kind has been so long struggling to achieve is a fair system that will permit those with special gifts of abilities to accumulate a good deal of money without, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the sufferings of the poor. No system can work if there isn’t an accumulation of wealth. It just happens that the free market system is better in that regard that the alternatives. In the ongoing debate on this issue, it is by no means necessary to argue that the free market system is perfect. It isn’t. It is simply better than the other alternatives because it is the system that provides us many more choices, certainly much more freedom, and continued prosperity.

(Steve Allen in this 9 minute video introduces Milton Friedman’s episode “Created Equal”)

_____________________________________________________

I would like to profile some State Legislators and I wanted to start off with my good friend Ann Clemmer who represents Bryant so well. Jill and I have sent our 4 kids to Bryant schools. Ann has sent her three daughters through the Bryant Schools  and I have had a chance to watch her up close and she is a lady of her word. (Below taken from Ann Clemmer’s facebook page)

State Representative Ann Clemmer District 29
First elected 2008 and re-elected 2010.

Hometown:
Bryant
Political Views:
Conservative
Religious Views:
Christian
Activities:
Gardening, reading, watching Bryant Hornet Sports,
Interests:
politics and faith issues and the family I am blessed to be a part of.
Favorite Music:
pop and rock oldies, but I listen to country, and current pop, christian music.
Favorite Movies:
When Harry Met Sally, Schindler’s List, Remember the Titans, Cinderella Man, Lord of the Rings Trilogy,
Favorite Books:
Angela’s Ashes, ‘Tis, Teacher Man,
Favorite TV Shows:
That 70s Show, Gilmore Girls, West Wing, Everybody Loves Raymond
Favorite Quotations:
“all that is necessary for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing” Edmund Burke
“to whom much is given, much is required” Luke 12:48
About Me:
After all these years of teaching government, I finally decided to run for office. I can no longer sit on the sidelines and offer commentary, without stepping up to offer myself to the voters as a candidate for office. I’m a wife to a wonderful husband, mother of three great and almost grown daughters. I was very happy with my life before deciding to enter politics as a candidate, but especially with term limits in the state legislature, more qualified people need to get out of their comfort zones to make our state a better place for the next generation.

Work Info

Employer:
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Position:
Instructor
Time Period:
August 1992 to present
Location:
Little Rock, AR
Description:
I am a member of a fantastic department where going into the office is a treat everyday. I am sad to be losing a dear colleague to a school closer to his home. We will miss you next year, Bill.

Education Info

Grad School:
College:
High School:

Pat Lynch: Criticizes Social Security Privatization

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

(Milton Friedman: The People did not want the Social Security Program)


Pat Lynch in his September 3, 2010 article in the Democrat Gazette article  notes that “Congressman John Boozman’s plan to privatize Social Security is similar to what President Bush proposed in 2005 and what Congressman Paul Ryan is advocating for this year.” Lynch uses this article to show how stupid this is for the financial future of the country. However, I will show how the free market could do a much better job than the government has in the past and will in the future.

In the October 27, 2010 Wall Street Journal in the article “Private Social Security Accounts: Still a Good Idea,” William Shipman lays out the facts:

Suppose a senior citizen — let’s call him “Joe the Plumber” — who retired at the end of 2009, at age 66, had been able to set up a personal account when he entered the work force in 1965, at the age of 21. Suppose that, paying into his personal account what he and his employer would have paid into Social Security, Joe was foolish enough to invest his entire portfolio in the stock market for all 45 years of his working career. How would he have fared in the recent financial crisis?

While working, Joe had earned the average income for full-time male workers. His wife Mary, also age 66, had earned the average income for full-time female workers. They invested together in an indexed portfolio of 90% large-cap stocks and 10% small-cap stocks, which earned the returns reported each year since 1965.

By the time of their retirement in 2009, Joe and Mary would have accumulated account funds, after administrative costs, of $855,175. Indeed, they would have been millionaires a few years earlier, but the financial crisis lost them 37% in 2008. They were unfortunate to retire just one year after the worst 10-year stock market performance since 1926. Yet their account, having earned a 6.75% return annually from 1965 to 2009, would still pay them about 75% more than Social Security would have.

What’s more, this model assumes that in retirement Joe and Mary switch to a lower-risk, conservative portfolio that averages a return of just 3%. Of course for young workers today, Social Security promises even lower returns of only 1.5% or less, given the actuarial value of all promised benefits. For many, the promised returns are zero or negative. And if Congress raises taxes or cuts benefits in order to close financial gaps — as everyone who rejects personal accounts effectively advocates — the eventual returns for young workers will be even lower.

It is a mathematical fact that the least expensive way to provide for an almost certain future liability is to save and invest in capital markets prior to the onset of the liability. That’s why state and local pension funds, corporate pension plans, federal employee retirement plans and Chile’s successful Social Security personal accounts (since copied by other countries) do so. It is sound practice.

And it’s why Mr. Obama is wrong to assert that personal Social Security accounts are “ill-conceived,” and why each of us should have the liberty to opt into one.

My father, Everette Hatcher Jr.,  has only once seen a presidential candidate.It was 1964 and it was the first time in his life that he was truly excited about a presidential candidate that did not play politics and said how it was. He drove down to downtown Memphis and heard Barry Goldwater speak at a train station.
My father later told me that he really was disappointed that the only  politician he ever got excited about lost by the largest landslide in the history of the nation up to that point.
One of the key issues in which the press mocked him on was his view to make Social Security voluntary and he also said that Social Security taxes would cost more than income taxes in most American households one day.  That day has come. I wish Goldwater’s idea had become law in 1964 which was less than three decades into Social Security. The next ten years the baby boomers will cause the amount of retirees on Social Security to go from 35 million to 70 million. If nothing is done now the system will eventually cause our taxes to climb from 15% to even higher levels. Barry knew what he was talking about.

More $ needed to make schools better?: Charter Schools Series pt 3

(Caroline Hoxby, Ph.D of Stanford explodes myth that public schools do not have enough money)

Max Brantley is always pointing out there is a billionaire boys club that is supporting the Charter School movement in Arkansas. In his article “Money talks in Charter School Debate,” (September 11, 2010), he lists these prominent gentleman. Liberals who follow Brantley in the Arkansas Times would tell you that the public schools need more money in order to do better. However, the facts do not back up that assertion.

Caroline Hoxby, Ph.D., the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor of Economics at Stanford University has noted:

The United States spends more money per pupil on public K-12 schooling than any other country in the world. Some of the school districts that are the most embarrassing for Americans like Newark, NJ or Washington D.C. are some of the most expensive in the world. So it is hard to make the case that the problem America has is just that it is not spending enough money… We have raised per pupil spending (in real inflation adjusted terms)  every single year for the last 40 years… (Not having enough money) is not the source of the problem for American education.

Hoxby is also a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, the director of the Economics of Education Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Senior Fellow of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

Inner city kids suffer the most when there is no School Choice: Charter Series pt 2


(Milton Friedman shows in this 9 minute video below how inner city parents have lost their freedom to choose concerning schools and they have suffered because of it)


The Arkansas Times has always been on the warpath when the subject of school choice comes up. Paul Hewitt in the Ark Times April 22, 2010 wrote:

In Arkansas we call privately operated charter schools “open enrollment schools.” In reality, are these schools truly open enrollment? Does every child have an equal opportunity to enroll? The first ingredient is that the child must have a parent who truly cares and monitors his or her education. 

Liberals condemn Charter and Voucher programs, but it seems it is undeniable that parents  are a key part of the success of schools. The conservative Milton Friedman went even further when he noted that  when parents lose control over the school then the education suffers:

To go back to the beginning, it all started with the fine idea that every child should have a chance to learn his three R’s. Sometimes in June when it gets hot, the kids come out in the yard to do their lessons, all 15 of them, ages 5 to 13, along with their teacher. This is the last one-room schoolhouse still operating in the state of Vermont. That is the way it used to be. Parental control, parents choosing the teacher, parents monitoring the schooling, parents even getting together and chipping in to paint the schoolhouse as they did here just a few weeks ago. Parental concern is still here as much in the slums of the big cities as in Bucolic, Vermont. But control by parents over the schooling of their children is today the exception, not the rule.

Increasingly, schools have come under the control of centralized administration, professional educators deciding what shall be taught, who shall do the teaching, and even what children shall go to what school. The people who lose most from this system are the poor and the disadvantaged in the large cities. They are simply stuck. They have no alternative.

Of course, if you are well off you do have a choice. You can send your child to a private school or you can move to an area where the public schools are excellent, as the parents of many of these students have done. These students are graduating from Weston High School in one of Boston’s wealthier suburbs. Their parents pay taxes instead of tuition and they certainly get better value for their money than do the parents in Hyde Park. That is partly because they have kept a good deal of control over the local schools, and in the process, they have managed to retain many of the virtues of the one-room schoolhouse.

 

Brummett: Jack up Taxes of Wealthy to reduce Deficit

Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

(Candidate Obama wanted to raise capital gains tax for purposes of fairness)

John Brummett in his article “Punish Less and Persuade More,” (December 13), asserted, “…you do not raise much money toward reducing the deficit by a nickel-and-dime tax policy on the fellow sweating his checkbook balance with an income of $50,000 a year….You jack them (now referring to those making more than $250,000) up a little more and suddenly you have generated hundreds of billions of dollars towards deficit reduction. You tax the rich more because that is where the money is and they can spare it. This is not confiscation. This is not a fine. It is common sense.”

However, the figures do not seem to back up Brummett’s assertion. The tax figures for 2007 seem to indicate that by reversing the tax cuts on the rich you could possibly pick up $36 billion while if you did the same to the middle class you could pick up $114 billion.

I am responding to these liberal assertion with a portion from an article published January 29, 2007 called, “Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts” by Brian Riedl. Riedl is the Grover Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation and Riedl’s budget research has been featured in front-page stories and editorials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.

Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Many critics of tax cuts nonetheless support extending the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent income tax bracket because these policies strongly benefit low-income tax families. They also support annually adjusting the alternative minimum tax exemption for inflation to prevent a massive broad-based tax increase. These critics assert that repealing the tax cuts for upper-income individuals and investors and bringing back the pre-2001 estate tax levels can raise substantial revenue. Once again, the numbers fail to support this claim.

In 2007, according to CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation data, the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 10 percent bracket, and AMT fix will have a combined budgetary effect of $114 billion. These policies do not have strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect.

By comparison, the more maligned capital gains, dividends, and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion even before the large and positive supply-side effects are incorporated. Thus, repealing these tax cuts would raise very little revenue and could possibly even reduce federal tax revenue. Such tax increases would certainly reduce the savings and investment vital to economic growth.

The individual income tax rate reductions come to $59 billion in 2007 and are not really a tax cut for the rich. All families with taxable incomes over $62,000 (and single filers over $31,000) benefit. Repealing this tax cut would reduce work incentives and raise taxes on millions of families and small businesses, thereby harming the economy and minimizing any new revenues.

Max Brantley is sharp critic of Charter and Voucher Proposals: Charter Schools Series pt 1

Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth

(Glenn Beck story on DC Voucher program)


Max Brantley noted on the Arkansas Times Blog on Thursday, Decemer 16th that “the Milwaukee school voucher program is cheaper than the cost of regular Milwaukee public schools.” This kind of evidence also encouraged the proposals concerning voucher programs throughout the country. However, Brantley is a very sharp critic of both the charter and voucher schools through out the country. Therefore, I want to start a series of articles looking at what the liberals in Arkansas have to say about these schools, and then I will take a look at the evidence out in the real world.

Today I wanted to share an article and video concerning what President Obama did to kill the successful Washington D.C. voucher school program.

“Obama’s Compromise on D.C.’s School Vouchers Program,” (Washington Post, May 10, 2009) was written by Andrew J. Coulson who is the Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. Below is that article:

President Obama’s decision isn’t much of a compromise. NEA President Dennis Van Roekel wrote to congressional Democrats demanding that they kill the D.C. voucher program, and they complied. Obama has merely tried to alter the manner of destruction — choosing attrition over summary execution.

During the campaign, Obama said that if vouchers worked he would support them. The Education Department recently revealed that students who joined the voucher program in 2004 are now more than two school years ahead of their public school peers in reading.

In his initial budget, Obama declared that when it comes to education, we cannot waste dollars on programs that are inefficient. Average tuition at the voucher schools is $6,620, while the District is spending $26,555 per pupil this year on K-12 education.

So contrary to his promises, the president has sacrificed a program he knows to be efficient and successful in order to appease the public school employee unions. If he will do this for the NEA, he will do anything.

America finally has an “education president,” and his name is Dennis Van Roekel (current President of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association).

Dumas: Bush Tax Cuts Hurt Economy

(Representative Todd Akin of St Louis talks about 2003 Bush Tax Cut and Obama’s recent tax compromise)
HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth
This morning when I got up the news was reporting that “A massive bipartisan tax package preventing a big New Year’s Day tax hike for millions of Americans is on its way to President Barack Obama for his signature.” Evidently, in order to get some things that the Democrats wanted, they had to allow the Republicans to keep the rates down on the top tax bracket. I think that is good, but many liberals have a real problem with that, and many will contend that lowering the top rate in the past has never helped.
In his article “Tax work, not wealth,” ( Nov 25, Arkansas Times), Ernest Dumas asserts, “…the Bush tax cuts, which were to send the economy soaring and set off the greatest hiring rush in history. We know what happened. But what about specifically the capital gains cut of 2003, which was packaged with accelerated personal and corporate tax cuts and lowered the top capital gains rate to 15 percent? The economy continued to grow at a snail’s pace and then fell off the cliff.”
NOTICE TO LIBERALS: The facts show that the economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Like my last post, I am responding to these liberal assertions with a portion from an article published January 29, 2007 called, “Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts” by Brian Riedl. Riedl is the Grover Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation and Riedl’s budget research has been featured in front-page stories and editorials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened:
  • GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
  • Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
    The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.
The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.