Prominent Democrats routinely utilize tax havens for business and investment purposes, including as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Rubin, Peter Orszag, and Richard Blumenthal

Interesting article by Dan Mitchell.

Since I’m probably the foremost defender of tax havens in the United States, I tend to get a lot of press inquiries whenever something happens that brings attention to these low-tax jurisdictions.

In recent months, almost all of the media calls have been because (gasp!) Mitt Romney engaged in sound business practices and used tax havens to boost earnings while also legally minimizing the amount of money siphoned off by the buffoons in Washington.

I’ve explained that prominent Democrats routinely utilize tax havens for business and investment purposes, including as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Rubin, Peter Orszag, and Richard Blumenthal. I’ve also discussed the issue for the Wall Street Journal’s online interview program, and I slammed ABC News for empty and biased reporting on the issue.

Most recently, I got interviewed by NBC’s big station in New York City. They inexplicably seemed to think it was a big scoop that they were able to form a company in Nevis, though at least they gave me an opportunity to explain that taxpayers benefited from tax havens and tax competition.

Dan Mitchell Defending Tax Havens on WNBC

Published on Sep 23, 2012 by

No description available.

_______________________

« .

But I don’t want to focus on my rather generic comments. Instead, I want to address the explicit assumption in the story that it is bad for Nevis (or any other jurisdiction) to have a simple and efficient process for forming companies.

Notwithstanding the news report, this is a good thing, a practice that should be applauded rather than condemned. Indeed, the World Bank highlights the importance of easy company formation in their important “Doing Business” project.

Moreover, there’s an implicit assumption in the story that not only is company formation somehow a sketchy thing, but that it’s only an issue for small Caribbean islands in the “offshore” world.

That’s completely inaccurate. Indeed, even leftists have acknowledged that Delaware is one of the premiere jurisdictions in the world for company formation, and I’ve explained that the U.S. has very attractive laws for international investors that have attracted trillions of dollars to the American economy.

Interestingly, we now have some very good evidence from three academics that the “offshore” world is much stricter about enforcing laws than the “onshore” world. Here’s what they did.

This paper reports the results of an experiment soliciting offers for these prohibited anonymous shell corporations. Our research team impersonated a variety of low- and high-risk customers, including would-be money launderers, corrupt officials, and terrorist financiers when requesting the anonymous companies. Evidence is drawn from more than 7,400 email solicitations to more than 3,700 Corporate Service Providers that make and sell shell companies in 182 countries. The experiment allows us to test whether international rules are actually effective when they mandate that those selling shell companies must collect identity documents from their customers.

And here’s what they found about so-called tax havens compared to high-tax nations. As you can see, the rules are much more likely to be obeyed in the low-tax jurisdictions that are always getting smeared.

A finding that runs directly counter to the conventional wisdom is that rich countries in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are worse at enforcing the rules on corporate transparency than are poor countries (see Figure 2). For developing countries the Dodgy Shopping Count is 12, while for developed countries it is 7.8 (and tax havens are much higher at 25.2, as discussed below). The significance of this finding is that it does not seem to be particularly expensive to enforce the rules on shell companies, given that poor nations do better than rich countries. This suggests that the relatively lackluster performance in rich countries reflects a simple unwillingness to enforce the rules, rather than any incapacity. One of the biggest surprises of the project was the relative performance of rich, developed states compared with poorer, developing countries and tax havens (see Figure 3). The overwhelming policy consensus, strongly articulated in G20 communiqués and by many NGOs, is that tax havens provide strict secrecy and lax regulation, especially when it comes to shell companies. This consensus is wrong. The Dodgy Shopping Count for tax havens is 25.2, which is in fact much higher than the score for rich, developed countries at 7.8 – meaning it is more than three times harder to obtain an untraceable shell company in tax havens than in developed countries. Some of the top-ranked countries in the world are tax havens such as Jersey, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas, while some developed countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the United States rank near the bottom of the list. It is easier to obtain an untraceable shell company from incorporation services (though not law firms) in the United States than in any other country save Kenya.

These are remarkable findings, but now let me take a moment to explain the correct interpretation of these results. Some people will argue that this data shows that there should be harsher rules imposed on the “onshore”  company formation business.

Au contraire. The goal should be to ease the regulatory burden everywhere. Simply stated, it is foolish to fight terrorism, corruption, and money laundering with costly rules that require the monitoring of countless legal actions.

Indeed, I’ve already explained how anti-money laundering rules are ineffective – or perhaps even counterproductive – in the fight against crime, largely because they generate a haystack of information, thus putting law enforcement in the unenviable position of searching for needles.

From a cost-benefit perspective, law enforcement should focus on actual criminal behavior. It wouldn’t make sense, after all, to have the government spy on everyone who buys a car merely because some people use autos when committing crime.

But that’s pretty much a good description of the mentality behind rules and regulations that target the company formation business.

P.S. For more information on the beneficial impact of so-called tax havens, Pierre Bessard wrote a great column about the topic for the New York Times.

P.P.S. I don’t want to overlook my statist friends. Here are a couple of short anti-tax haven videos from left wingers. The first one is tedious and amateurish, but I found the second one reasonably entertaining.

Famous Arkansan James Paul Clarke biography and video

Capitol Tour with Senator Mark Pryor

Published on Jun 13, 2012 by

Episode 1: Arkansans in the Capitol

__________

I have posted a lot in the past about Mark Pryor and most of the posts have been critical. (“THIRSTY THURSDAY” open letters to Senator Pryor displayed here on the www.thedailyhatch.org).  However, I must give him credit for this excellent video above about famous Arkansans who are recognized in Washington. Yesterday I posted the same video and included a post on Bill Clinton.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

James Paul Clarke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the Canadian composer, see James P. Clarke (composer).
James Paul Clarke
18th Governor of Arkansas
In office
1895–1897
Preceded by William Meade Fishback
Succeeded by Daniel Webster Jones
United States Senator
from Arkansas
In office
1903–1916
Preceded by James K. Jones
Succeeded by William F. Kirby
Personal details
Born August 18, 1854
Yazoo City, Mississippi
Died October 1, 1916 (aged 62)
Little Rock, Arkansas
Resting place Oakland Cemetery
Political party Democratic
Alma mater University of Virginia
Profession Lawyer

James Paul Clarke (August 18, 1854– October 1, 1916) was a United States Senator and the 18th Governor of Arkansas.

Contents

Biography

Clarke was born in Yazoo City, Mississippi. His father passed away when Clarke was seven years old, and he was raised by his mother. Clarke attended public schools as well as Tutwilder’s Academy in Greenbrier, Alabama.[1] He graduated with a law degree at the University of Virginia in 1878. Clarke was admitted to the bar in 1879, and practiced law at Helena, Arkansas.

Career

Clarke served as a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1886 to 1888. He became a member of the Arkansas Senate from 1888 to 1892, and served as president of the Senate in 1891.

James Paul Clarke

Clarke was elected Attorney General of Arkansas and served from 1892 to 1894. He served as Governor of Arkansas from 1895 to 1896.[2] His term was largely unsuccessful and his legislation to end prizefighting and establish four year terms for state officers failed. After leaving office in 1897, he moved his permanent residence to Little Rock, Arkansas and practiced law.

Clarke was elected to the United States Senate in 1903, and served until his death in 1916. He served as President pro tempore of the United States Senate during the Sixty-third and Sixty-fourth Congresses.

Death and legacy

Clarke died in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is buried at Oakland Cemetery in Little Rock.

Clarke’s statue is one of two statues that was presented by the State of Arkansas to the National Statuary Hall Collection at the United States Capitol.[3]

Quote

  • “A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation.”[4]

References

  1. ^ “James Paul Clarke (1895-1897)”. Old State House Museum. Retrieved August 17, 2012.
  2. ^ “Arkansas Governor James Paul Clarke”. National Governors Asociation. Retrieved August 17, 2012.
  3. ^ “James Paul Clarke”. Find A Grave. Retrieved August 17, 2012.
  4. ^ “Past Quotes”. Political Information.com. Retrieved August 17, 2012.

Related posts:

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor,  Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

 

“Tennis Tuesday” David Wheaton (Part 2)

1991 Wimbledon Andre Agassi David Wheaton Michael Stich Boris Becker Part 2

Uploaded by on Feb 10, 2011

1991 Wimbledon Andre Agassi David Wheaton Michael Stich Boris Becker Part 2 RF

_________________

Wikipedia reports:

David Wheaton (born June 2, 1969) is a former professional tennis player from the United States.

Born in Minneapolis, Wheaton played in his first tournament at age eight, and won the Minnesota State High School tennis title in 1984, as a ninth grader. In 1987, he won the US Open junior title and was ranked the No. 1 junior player in the US. In 1988, he helped Stanford University‘s tennis team win the NCAA team title. He was married in 2009.

Wheaton turned professional in 1988 and won his first top-level singles title in 1990 at Kiawah Island, South Carolina. He was also runner-up in the 1990 US Open men’s doubles.

The most significant highlights of his career came in 1991. He won the Grand Slam Cup in Munich, beating Michael Chang in straight sets in the final 7–5, 6–2, 6–4. He also reached the semi-finals of the men’s singles at Wimbledon (beating Andre Agassi in the quarter-finals before being knocked-out by Boris Becker), and was a men’s doubles runner-up at the Australian Open (partnering his former Stanford team-mate Patrick McEnroe). Wheaton reached his career-high singles ranking of World No. 12 in July 1991.

During his career, Wheaton won three top-level singles and three tour doubles titles. His career prize-money earnings total US$5,238,401. He retired from the professional tour in 2001 following a series of injuries during the late 1990s.

Since retiring from the tour, Wheaton has taken on a new career as a Christian radio talk-show host, producer and host of The Christian Worldview, a live call-in talk radio program on KKMS (AM 980) in Minneapolis/St. Paul and 165 other stations in the US, as well as Sirius satellite ch 161, plus streaming on the web at AFR.NET. The program offers a biblical perspective on current events, culture and faith; he is also author of (University Of Destruction: Your Game Plan For Spiritual Victory On Campus), and motivational speaker, as well as contributing newspaper writer for the sport of tennis, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. He is also a frequent guest host on other talk radio shows.

He served on the board of Directors of the United States Tennis Association (USTA) through 2006. He plays in professional tennis tour senior tournaments, and won the Wimbledon men’s 35 doubles Championship title in 2004, and was runner-up in 2005 and 2006.

[edit] Masters Series singles finals

[edit] Runner-ups

Year Championship Opponent in Final Score in Final
1991 Miami United States Jim Courier 6–4, 3–6, 4–6

[edit] External links and sources

_____________

Testimony David Wheaton Tennis

Uploaded by on Sep 23, 2011

Testimony David Wheaton Tennis

_______________

David Wheaton has an excellent show and website at www.Christianworldview.org Below is some material from his website:

————– David Wheaton’s Faith Story ————

A passage in the Bible perfectly describes the before and after picture of my life:

Before: “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

After: But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:1-9).

Speaking of before and after pictures, this picture of me before I became a follower of Jesus Christ is worth a thousand words.
There I am on the cover of Minnesota Monthly. “David Wheaton: A Smashing Success.

What more could a 22 year-old ask for? There they are: fame, fortune, success.

But what makes this magazine cover really interesting is the actual photograph. It can be viewed a number of ways, all perfectly representative of my life at that time:

I appear to be a prisoner behind my racquet. I’m holding a mask in front of my face. The broken strings represent my relationships with God and others. There is no joy in my countenance.

That was me before I came to know Jesus Christ: outward success, but inward conflict.

But why? How could a young man be so internally conflicted and empty when he had already attained what most people in this world seek after?

At the Grand Slam Cup in Munich, Germany in 1991, I experienced an overdose of fame, fortune, and success. I had just won the largest prize money check in tennis history in one of the biggest tournaments of the year and my success was being broadcast all over the world.

But within 15 minutes after one of the biggest moments of my life, all 12,000 fans filed right out of the stadium. I vividly remember experiencing an incredible letdown and thinking how quickly it all came to an end.

I had spent my whole childhood and teenage years practicing tennis, I had played hundreds of matches in junior, collegiate and professional tournaments, I had worked so hard just to qualify for and win this tournament, and now everyone just gets up and leaves. For the first time in my life, the brevity of earthly success hit me hard.

Yes, that week in ‘91 changed my life, but one thing is for certain: I didn’t become a happier person as a result of my big win. As a matter of fact, my life continued to become more filled with internal strife, relationship conflicts with my parents and others, and an emptiness caused by a misguided life purpose. Instead of contentment brought by fame, fortune, and success, deep down I was unhappy and unsettled.

Growing up as the youngest of four children in a close, church-going Christian family, I was clearly taught the Bible and Christian values by my parents. I knew the right way to live, but I felt like I was somehow missing out on what the world had to offer: pursuits that I later learned resulted in a guilty conscience, regret, and spiritually unhealthy relationships.

I may have thought I had a faith of my own, but my life bore very little resemblance to one who knows Jesus Christ. Cultivating a relationship with God through reading the Bible and praying, honoring my parents, and living a holy life were not characteristics of my life. My inner conflict stemmed from knowing God’s way, but living another way according to my own desires.

In the midst of my outward success and inner conflict, God allowed two things to occur in my life:

  1. He let me experience the emptiness and vanity of what the world seeks.
  2. He brought me to the low point of understanding my own sinfulness and need for a Savior.

A couple years after my big win, I began to earnestly read the Bible and study some of the biblical principles presented in a Christian seminar I had attended that year. Finally, the rose-colored glasses came off my eyes and I saw my own sinfulness.

During this time of intense study and soul searching, I confessed and repented of my sin to God and trusted in His Son, Jesus Christ as both the Savior and Lord of my life.

My life began to change immediately, though not easily. Difficult choices needed to be made between my old way of living versus God’s way. Previously, I could not reform myself from my sinful thoughts, actions, and relationships. Now, these sinful habits were being overcome through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit reminding me to obey God’s Word.

God was changing me from the inside out. These positive changes in my life gave me great motivation to continue following Jesus Christ.

During the last twelve years, a few practical things have helped nurture and deepen my relationship with Jesus Christ:

  1. A daily time with God reading the Bible and praying.
  2. Honoring the God-given authorities in my life.
  3. Spending time with like-minded Christian friends.
  4. Avoiding anything that would offend my Savior.

Please don’t get the idea that I’m perfect or sinless. But God’s goal for every Christian is that they become more like His Son, Jesus Christ. I try to keep this as my calling.

These last ten years of being a committed believer in Jesus Christ have given me the most important thing in life—something fame, fortune, success and the “passing pleasures of sin” could never offer: a sense of joy and contentment to be in a right relationship with the God of the universe when I put my head on the pillow each night. That is truly priceless.

As someone once said: “Life without Christ is a hopeless end; life with Christ is an endless hope.”

Related posts:

“Tennis Tuesday” David Wheaton (Part 1)

Testimony David Wheaton Tennis Uploaded by TheTrueSeven on Sep 23, 2011 Testimony David Wheaton Tennis _______________ Wikipedia reports: Country  United States Residence Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota Born June 2, 1969 (1969-06-02) (age 42) Minneapolis, Minnesota Height 1.93 m (6 ft 4 in) Weight 84 kg (190 lb; 13.2 st) Turned pro 1988 Retired 2001 Plays Right-handed Career prize money US$5,238,401 Singles Career record 232–191 […]

“Soccer Saturday” USA beats Italy for first time in soccer

Uploaded by ussoccerdotcom on Feb 29, 2012 The U.S. Men’s National Team defeated Italy for the first time on Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012 in Genoa. Clint Dempsey’s goal gave the USA the lead and a resilient team defensive performance kept the Italian’s off the scoresheet for a historic win. __________________________ Related posts: Thierry Henry Part […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 6

McEnroe was McNasty on and off the court By Larry Schwartz Special to ESPN.com “I wanted to spend [the night] with my family and friends and the people who had supported me, not a bunch of stiffs who were 70-80 years old, telling you that you’re acting like a jerk,” says John McEnroe on ESPN […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 5

Head-to-head [edit] Borg 9–11 McEnroe (7-7 at the main tour) No. Year Tournament Surface Round Winner Score 1 1978 Stockholm Hard SF McEnroe 6–3, 6–4 2 1979 Richmond Carpet SF Borg 4–6, 7–6(10-8), 6–3 3 1979 New Orleans Carpet SF McEnroe 5–7, 6–1, 7–6(8-6) 4 1979 Rotterdam Carpet F Borg 6–4, 6–2 5 1979 Dallas […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 4

  Born: February 16, 1959 Wiesbaden, Germany American tennis player and television commentator John McEnroe was one of the most successful and high-profile players in the history of tennis. Throughout his career, McEnroe won seventeen Grand Slam titles, seventy-seven career single titles, and seventy-seven doubles titles. Childhood on the court John Patrick McEnroe Jr. was […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 3

Above is a video I used to like a lot which features MacEnroe’s wife. _________________________ The tennis players Björn Borg and John McEnroe met 14 times at the regular tour during their careers with their on-court rivalry highlighted by their contrasting temperaments and styles.[1] Borg was known for his cool and emotionless demeanor on court, […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 2

From Wikipedia: John Patrick McEnroe, Jr. (born February 16, 1959) is a former world no. 1 professional tennis player from the United States. During his career, he won seven Grand Slam singles titles (three at Wimbledon and four at the US Open), nine Grand Slam men’s doubles titles, and one Grand Slam mixed doubles title. […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 1 (Greatest tennis match of all time, versus Borg)

From Wikipedia: McEnroe won a total of 148 ATP titles (a record for a male professional) during his career — 77 in singles, 71 in men’s doubles, and 1 in mixed doubles (not counted as ATP title).He won seven Grand Slam singles titles. He also won a record eight year end championship titles overall, the […]

Andy Roddick retires at US Open “Tennis Tuesday”

Published on Aug 30, 2012 by USOPEN Andy Roddick holds press conference to announce his retirement from professional tennis at the age of 30. Roddick is a former world #1 and won the 2003 US Open. ____________ Juan Carlos Ferrero vs Andy Roddick Final US Open 2003 Highlights Pt. 1 Andy has some impressive stats: […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 3

Above is a video I used to like a lot which features MacEnroe’s wife. _________________________ The tennis players Björn Borg and John McEnroe met 14 times at the regular tour during their careers with their on-court rivalry highlighted by their contrasting temperaments and styles.[1] Borg was known for his cool and emotionless demeanor on court, […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 2

From Wikipedia: John Patrick McEnroe, Jr. (born February 16, 1959) is a former world no. 1 professional tennis player from the United States. During his career, he won seven Grand Slam singles titles (three at Wimbledon and four at the US Open), nine Grand Slam men’s doubles titles, and one Grand Slam mixed doubles title. […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 1 (Greatest tennis match of all time, versus Borg)

From Wikipedia: McEnroe won a total of 148 ATP titles (a record for a male professional) during his career — 77 in singles, 71 in men’s doubles, and 1 in mixed doubles (not counted as ATP title).He won seven Grand Slam singles titles. He also won a record eight year end championship titles overall, the […]

Rebecca Marino “Tennis Tuesday”

Rebecca Marino Interview at Saguenay National Bank Challenger Uploaded by TCtenniscanada on Sep 22, 2010 Rebecca Marino speaks to media following her 2nd round win over fellow Canadian Gabriela Dabrowski at the $50,000 Saguenay National Bank Challenger. ___________________ Wikipedia notes: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Rebecca Marino Rebecca Marino at the […]

Marina Erakovic “Tennis Tuesday”

One on One With Marina Erakovic Uploaded by ASBClassicvideo on Jan 1, 2011 James McOnie talks with Marina Erakovic and gets some positive reinforcement. __________________________________ From Wikipedia: Jump to: navigation, search Marina Erakovic Erakovic at the 2009 ASB Classic Country  New Zealand Residence Auckland, New Zealand Born 6 March 1988 (1988-03-06) (age 23) Split, SFR Yugoslavia […]

Johanna Larsson “Tennis Tuesday”

From Wikipedia: Johanna Larsson Country  Sweden Residence Helsingborg, Sweden Born 17 August 1988 (1988-08-17) (age 23) Boden, Sweden Height 1.74m (5′ 9″) Weight 66 kg Turned pro 2006 Plays Right-handed (two-handed backhand) Career prize money $449.950 Singles Career record 220–124 Career titles 11 ITF Highest ranking No. 46 (July 11, 2011) Current ranking No. 58 (January […]

Nadia Petrova “Tennis Tuesday”

Petrova Interview Wimbledon 2008 Day 8 Uploaded by MZTennis on Jul 1, 2008 Download Match http://tinyurl.com/579jxq Petrova Wimbledon 2008 Interview Day 8 ________________________________ From Wikipedia: Nadia Petrova Надежда Петрова Country  Russia Residence Miami, USA Born June 8, 1982 (1982-06-08) (age 29) Moscow, Soviet Union Height 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in) Weight 65 kg (140 lb; 10.2 st) Turned pro September 6, 1999 […]

Elena Baltacha “Tennis Tuesday”

Uploaded by HobartInternational on Jan 8, 2011 British star Elena Baltacha talks ahead of the Moorilla Hobart International. The Scotswoman, known as “Bally”, is one of many top international players competing at the WTA AO Series event in the Tasmanian capital. She faces Tamarine Tansugarn in Thailand. __________________________ From Wikipedia: Jump to: navigation, search Elena […]

Bethanie Mattek-Sands “Tennis Tuesday”

2011 Australian Open – Bethanie Mattek-Sands Uploaded by tennis on Jan 24, 2011 In an exclusive interview with USTA.com’s Craig Gabriel from the 2011 Australian Open in Melbourne, American Bethanie Mattek-Sands talks about finding doubles success down under, the atmosphere of the Aussie Open, maintaining a solid ranking, the mindset of trying to qualify, losing […]

“Tennis Tuesday” every week here on www.thedailyhatch.org

Every Tuesday you can find a great post like this one and below you can find some links to past posts. From Wikipedia: McEnroe won a total of 148 ATP titles (a record for a male professional) during his career — 77 in singles, 71 in men’s doubles, and 1 in mixed doubles (not counted […]

“Tennis Tuesday” Top Ten paid tennis players in the world

Here are the top ten paid tennis players in the world: Hey people, here we have this post about the top 10 highest paid tennis players of the world, for a little introduction let me tell you that a sum of $1.7 million is given to men’s and women’s US open champion for the title. […]

Andy Roddick has impressive stats “Tennis Tuesday”

Juan Carlos Ferrero vs Andy Roddick Final US Open 2003 Highlights Pt. 1 Andy has some impressive stats: Serve records: Fastest serve in Australian open: 148 mph . Fastest serve in Dubai: 150 mph. Fastest average in first serve: 134 mph. Fastest serve in Beijing: 148 mph. Fastest serve in San Jose: 150 mph. Fastest serve in Madrid: 151 mph. Fastest […]

James Blake “Tennis Tuesday”

ESPN on James Blake’s tennis career winding down From Wikipedia: James Riley Blake[1] (born December 28, 1979) is an American professional tennis player. Blake is known for his speed and powerful, flat forehand. As of August 2011, Blake is ranked no. 63 among active male players with 24 career finals appearances (10–14 record). His career […]

Lleyton Hewitt “Tennis Tuesday”

Uploaded by TennisAustralia on Sep 16, 2011 Lleyton Hewitt and Roger Federer speak to the media following Federer’s win in the second rubber. _________________________ Wikipedia noted: Lleyton Glynn Hewitt ( /ˈleɪtən ˈhjuːɨt/;[2] born 24 February 1981) is an Australian professional tennis player and former world no. 1. In 2000, Hewitt had won ATP titles on all […]

Radek Stepanek “Tennis Tuesday”

Uploaded by TennisPiu on Feb 23, 2009 Highlights of the final between Andy Roddick and Radek Stepanek of the Regions Morgan Keegan Championships 2009 in Memphis. ______________________________ From Wikipedia: Radek Štěpánek Country  Czech Republic Residence Monte Carlo, Monaco Born 27 November 1978 (1978-11-27) (age 33) Karviná, Czechoslovakia Height 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in) Weight 76 kg (170 lb; 12.0 st) Turned pro […]

David Wheaton, editor

Open letter to President Obama (Part 145B)

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full)

Published on Mar 19, 2012 by

______________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done. Why can’t we learn from the failures of other countries and not repeat the same mistakes?

Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:
 

Ronald Reagan: In 1980, a friend of mine did something of rare importance that some historians might miss. Dr. Milton Friedman, a scientist, a careful thinker, and a great teacher first presented his TV series Free to Choose. His TV series was about choices, risks, freedom, equality, and making a better future for all of us.

In 1976, the 200th birth of our nation, Milton Friedman won the Nobel Peace Prize in economics. Two hundred years earlier, in the same year as the Declaration of Independence, Adam Smith, the Scotsman, published a book entitled The Wealth Of Nations. The United States was the first country to apply the ideas in Adam Smith’s book. Those ideas have led to our prosperity and given us our freedom.

In Free to Choose, Milton Friedman shows us how those ideas can help us today. In this program, Milton and his wife Rose, take us on a brief tour of Eastern Europe. They wanted to see if the Czechs, Hungarians and Poles were taking the steps needed to achieve prosperity and a lasting freedom. In fact, a member of the Polish Parliament has said that Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose was a major influence on the Polish drive for freedom.

I find it exciting to watch the rebirth of freedom in Eastern Europe. Being free to choose should be every person’s birthright. Everywhere in the world, and especially here in the United States, we need to keep government on the sidelines. Let the people develop their own skills, solve their own problems, better their own lives. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to call Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.

Friedman: Those are the parliament buildings. This is the river Danube and I am in Budapest, the capitol of Hungary. Over there somewhere is Czechoslovakia, over there Poland, and farther away yet, the Soviet Union. Socialist states that started out with the very best of intentions, intending only to improve the lots of their citizens, they all ended up making the people poor, miserable and into slaves. And every one of them has been learning that lesson that socialism is a failure. They are all trying to move in the direction of a free, private market.

What happened here in Eastern Europe was a major event. The first time in history that the totalitarian countries decided to move toward free markets. Will they succeed? That is a question that brought my wife Rose and me here. As economists, we wanted to witness the most exciting experiment in political and economic organization that is likely to occur in our lifetime.

In the center of Prague, there is a famous cafe, a relic from the days when Czechoslovakia was one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Today, we find only faded elegance, a pale echo of a productive past that was created by market incentives. What happened? Communist central control __ that is what happened. The same culture, the same people, the same resources who wanted different outcomes of vastly lower standard of living, the result of substituting orders from the top for incentives from below. Who says economic institutions don’t matter?

A year ago, right outside that cafe, hundreds of thousands of Czechs massed in Wensisloss Square to demand their freedom. This is where it all happened. In three days they got political freedom. The hopes were high. They thought economic miracles would follow quickly. Yet now it is a year later and almost nothing has happened. Political freedom can be achieved rapidly; economic freedom and prosperity is a very different thing. That’s what is beginning to dawn on these people. In reality they are not yet free. They are still the victims of thousands of controls the communists put in place.

If the newly elected governments are going to keep the support of the people, they must give them real freedom and they’ve got to do it fast. That was the secret of Margaret Thatcher’s success in England. She had a well worked out program and she put it into effect right after coming into office. It was the secret of Ronald Reagan’s program. On the other hand, Manahem Began in Israel came in without any plans whatsoever, and he ended up a failure. If Czechoslovakia is going to achieve the objectives of its revolution, it must move rapidly to put into effect the economic institutions which alone can convert political freedom into economic and human freedom. Those institutions are the institutions of free, private markets.

There are examples all over the place of both the opportunities and the problems. Yuri Malick wants to publish a magazine for people who are trying to set up their own private businesses in Czechoslovakia. He runs it from his living room. It’s a small family enterprise. The magazine is packed with information for would-be businessmen on how to thread their way through the jungle of bureaucratic regulations that still exist. The irony is that some of those very regulations are preventing him from getting his business off the ground. For a start, he needs to obtain 15 separate government licenses before he can distribute the magazine. After nearly a year, he still hasn’t got them. He has had to come here again and again to this government licensing bureau to try to persuade a bureaucrat to allow him to do business.

Yet again, it’s not his lucky day. Yuri Malick doesn’t give in easily, but things are not looking too hopeful. The man he has got to see is not available and no one else is interested in his problem. The Cheque government owns all the newsstands, the book shops, the nationwide distribution system which is controlled from here. There is one way, and only one way, to put an end to all this nonsense, the government must get out of business and stay out. It must transfer these assets into private hands.

These are the kinds of forms you have to fill out in this country in a place like that if you want to start a business or get anything done. But if you think that only happens here, tell me when was the last time you stood in line to get a driver’s license or a registration plate, or do you know anybody in Britain, France, Germany or the United States who has built a house sometime in the last 10 years. Ask him what he went through.

___________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Listing of transcripts and videos of “Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave on www.theDailyHatch.org

In the last few years the number of people receiving Food Stamps has skyrocketed. President Obama has not cut any federal welfare programs but has increased them, and he  has used class warfare over and over the last few months and according to him equality at the finish line is the equality that we should all be talking about. However, socialism has never worked and it has always killed incentive to produce more. Milton Friedman shows in this film series below how so many people get caught in the “Welfare Trap.” Friedman also gives a great solution to this problem in the “negative income tax.” I am glad that I had the chance to be studying his work for over 30 years now.

In 1980 when I first sat down and read the book “Free to Choose” I was involved in Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president and excited about the race. Milton Friedman’s books and film series really helped form my conservative views. Take a look at one of my favorite films of his:

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave
Abstract:

Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions. Travelling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed. Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income. This contrasts with many of today’s programs where one dollar earned means nearly one dollar lost in welfare payments.

Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave
Transcript:
Friedman: After the 2nd World War, New York City authorities retained rent control supposedly to help their poorer citizens. The intentions were good. This in the Bronx was one result.
By the 50’s the same authorities were taxing their citizens. Including those who lived in the Bronx and other devastated areas beyond the East River to subsidize public housing. Another idea with good intentions yet poor people are paying for this, subsidized apartments for the well-to-do. When government at city or federal level spends our money to help us, strange things happen.
The idea that government had to protect us came to be accepted during the terrible years of the Depression. Capitalism was said to have failed. And politicians were looking for a new approach.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a candidate for the presidency. He was governor of New York State. At the governor’s mansion in Albany, he met repeatedly with friends and colleagues to try to find some way out of the Depression. The problems of the day were to be solved by government action and government spending. The measures that FDR and his associates discussed here derived from a long line of past experience. Some of the roots of these measures go back to Bismark’s Germany at the end of the 19th Century. The first modern state to institute old age pensions and other similar measures on the part of government. In the early 20th Century Great Britain followed suit under Lloyd George and Churchill. It too instituted old age pensions and similar plans.
These precursors of the modern welfare state had little effect on practice in the United States. But they did have a very great effect on the intellectuals on the campus like those who gathered here with FDR. The people who met here had little personal experience of the horrors of the Depression but they were confident that they had the solution. In their long discussions as they sat around this fireplace trying to design programs to meet the problems raised by the worst Depression in the history of the United States, they quite naturally drew upon the ideas that were prevalent at the time. The intellectual climate had become one in which it was taken for granted that government had to play a major role in solving the problems in providing what came later to be called Security from Cradle to Grave.
Roosevelt’s first priority after his election was to deal with massive unemployment. A Public Works program was started. The government financed projects to build highways, bridges and dams. The National Recovery Administration was set up to revitalize industry. Roosevelt wanted to see America move into a new era. The Social Security Act was passed and other measures followed. Unemployment benefits, welfare payments, distribution of surplus food. With these measures, of course, came rules, regulations and red tape as familiar today as they were novel then. The government bureaucracy began to grow and it’s been growing ever since.
This is just a small part of the Social Security empire today. Their headquarters in Baltimore has 16 rooms this size. All these people are dispensing our money with the best possible intentions. But at what cost?
In the 50 years since the Albany meetings, we have given government more and more control over our lives and our income. In New York State alone, these government buildings house 11,000 bureaucrats. Administering government programs that cost New York taxpayers 22 billion dollars. At the federal level, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare alone has a budget larger than any government in the world except only Russia and the United States.
Yet these government measures often do not help the people they are supposed to. Richard Brown’s daughter, Helema, needs constant medical attention. She has a throat defect and has to be connected to a breathing machine so that she’ll survive the nights. It’s expensive treatment and you might expect the family to qualify for a Medicaid grant.
Richard Brown: No, I don’t get it, cause I’m not eligible for it. I make a few dollars too much and the salary that I make I can’t afford to really live and to save anything is out of the question. And I mean, I live, we live from payday to payday. I mean literally from payday to payday.
Friedman: His struggle isn’t made any easier by the fact that Mr. Brown knows that if he gave up his job as an orderly at the Harlem Hospital, he would qualify for a government handout. And he’d be better off financially.
Hospital Worker: Mr. Brown, do me a favor please? There is a section patient.
Friedman: It’s a terrible pressure on him. But he is proud of the work that he does here and he’s strong enough to resist the pressure.
Richard Brown: I’m Mr. Brown. Your fully dilated and I’m here to take you to the delivery. Try not to push, please. We want to have a nice sterile delivery.
Friedman: Mr. Brown has found out the hard way that welfare programs destroy an individual’s independence.
Richard Brown: We’ve considered welfare. We went to see, to apply for welfare but, we were told that we were only eligible for $5.00 a month. And, to receive this $5.00 we would have to cash in our son’s savings bonds. And that’s not even worth it. I don’t believe in something for nothing anyway.
Mrs. Brown: I think a lot of people are capable of working and are willing to work, but it’s just the way it is set up. It, the mother and the children are better off if the husband isn’t working or if the husband isn’t there. And this breaks up so many poor families.
Friedman: One of the saddest things is that many of the children whose parents are on welfare will in their turn end up in the welfare trap when they grow up. In this public housing project in the Bronx, New York, 3/4’s of the families are now receiving welfare payments.
Well Mr. Brown wanted to keep away from this kind of thing for a very good reason. The people who get on welfare lose their human independence and feeling of dignity. They become subject to the dictates and whims of their welfare supervisor who can tell them whether they can live here or there, whether they may put in a telephone, what they may do with their lives. They are treated like children, not like responsible adults and they are trapped in the system. Maybe a job comes up which looks better than welfare but they are afraid to take it because if they lose it after a few months it maybe six months or nine months before they can get back onto welfare. And as a result, this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle rather than simply a temporary state of affairs.
Things have gone even further elsewhere. This is a huge mistake. A public housing project in Manchester, England.
Well we’re 3,000 miles away from the Bronx here but you’d never know it just by looking around. It looks as if we are at the same place. It’s the same kind of flats, the same kind of massive housing units, decrepit even though they were only built 7 or 8 years ago. Vandalism, graffiti, the same feeling about the place. Of people who don’t have a great deal of drive and energy because somebody else is taking care of their day to day needs because the state has deprived them of an incentive to find jobs to become responsible people to be the real support for themselves and their families.

Other segments:

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 7 of 7)

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. TEMIN: We don’t think the big capital arose before the government did? VON HOFFMAN: Listen, what are we doing here? I mean __ defending big government is like defending death and taxes. […]

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 6 of 7)

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen worked pretty well for a whole generation. Now anything that works well for a whole generation isn’t entirely bad. From the fact __ from that fact, and the undeniable fact that things […]

Milton Friedman discusses Reagan and Reagan discusses Friedman

Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 5 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 5 of 7 MCKENZIE: Ah, well, that’s not on our agenda actually. (Laughter) VOICE OFF SCREEN: Why not? MCKENZIE: I boldly repeat the question, though, the expectation having been __ having […]

War on poverty is a failure in USA

Milton Friedman’s solution to limiting poverty Liberals just don’t get it. They should listen to Milton Friedman (who is quoted in this video below concerning the best way to limit poverty). New Video Shows the War on Poverty Is a Failure Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released another […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 4 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 4 of 7 The massive growth of central government that started after the depression has continued ever since. If anything, it has even speeded up in recent years. Each year there […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 3 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 3 OF 7 Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside […]

 

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 2 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t […]

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7) Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave Abstract: Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act […]

John L. Smith speaks to Little Rock Touchdown Club (part1)

 

I enjoyed the speech today. It was extremely short then he took questions. Here is a rundown from Arkansas Sports 360.

<!–

51

–>

9/24/2012 at 1:04pm

Image by Trent Ogle

John L. Smith is apparently being John L. Smith today at the Little Rock Touchdown Club.

From Jim Harris’ twitter feed:

•”exhorting fans not to give up on program, John L Smith just said ‘It’s a state of Alabama program.'”

UPDATE: Here’s the qoute:

“I’m asking you as fans, don’t giv eup on those players, don’t give up on us. It’s our program, it’s a state of Alabama program. It’s not one individual’s program, so hang in there, we’re all part of it.”

•Asked where he thought Bobby Petrino would end up next year, Kentucky or Auburn, Smith laughed, then said “a better guess would be Auburn.”

We’re told the room is getting very uncomfortable.

Jim Harris will have a column and Trent Ogle is providing video from today’s appearance.

ArkansasSports360.com will update this post.

Famous Arkansan Bill Clinton (1946–) biography and video

Capitol Tour with Senator Mark Pryor

Published on Jun 13, 2012 by

Episode 1: Arkansans in the Capitol

__________

I have posted a lot in the past about Mark Pryor and most of the posts have been critical. (“THIRSTY THURSDAY” open letters to Senator Pryor displayed here on the www.thedailyhatch.org).  However, I must give him credit for this excellent video above about famous Arkansans who are recognized in Washington.

Fortieth and Forty-second Governor (1979–1981, 1983–1992)
Forty-second President of the United States (1993–2001)
aka: William Jefferson Clinton

William Jefferson Clinton, a native of Hope (Hempstead County), was the fortieth and forty-second governor of Arkansas and the forty-second president of the United States. Clinton’s tenure as governor of Arkansas, eleven years and eleven months total, was the second longest in the state’s history. Only Orval E. Faubus served longer, with twelve years. Clinton was the second youngest governor in the state’s history, after John Selden Roane, and the third youngest person to become president, after Theodore Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Clinton’s years as governor were marked by extensive efforts to reform the public school system and to spur economic growth. He persuaded lawmakers to enact numerous educational reforms, levy substantial taxes to improve education, and enact an array of laws to invite industrial development and spur business investment.

His election as president in 1992 was followed by the longest period of sustained economic growth in U.S. history. A controversial package of spending reductions and tax increases early in his first year in office and further budget changes in 1997 led to the elimination of deficits in the federal budget and to four successive budget surpluses. It had been fifty years since the government ran three or more surpluses in a row (1947–1949) .

Clinton was president during a period of intense partisanship. Throughout his political career, he demonstrated an ability to bounce back from defeats and scandal. His presidency was beset by numerous investigations, one of which resulted in his becoming the first elected American president to be impeached. Still, he left office in 2001 enjoying high popularity.

Early Life
Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe IV on August 19, 1946, in Hope, the son of William Jefferson Blythe III and Virginia Cassidy Blythe. His father, a traveling salesman, was killed in an automobile accident before Clinton was born. After he became president, Clinton learned that his father had been married at least three times and that he had a half-brother and a half-sister whom he had never met. He changed his name to Clinton after his mother married Roger Clinton, a car dealer. The family moved to Hot Springs (Garland County), where he graduated from high school. After he became president of the United States, he and his mother revealed that Roger Clinton had been an alcoholic who abused Clinton, Clinton’s mother, and Clinton’s younger half-brother, Roger.

Clinton was a precocious student, musically talented and popular. He graduated from Georgetown University in Washington DC, attended Oxford University in Oxford, England, on a Rhodes Scholarship, and received a law degree from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, where he met his future wife, Hillary Rodham of Park Ridge, Illinois. After receiving a law degree in 1973, he returned to Arkansas to teach law at the University of Arkansas (UA) in Fayetteville (Washington County). Rodham joined him on the faculty in 1974, and they were married on October 11, 1975.

Early Political Career
Intent on a political career since he was a child, Clinton was selected to offices throughout his student career. While a student at Georgetown, he worked on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was chaired by Arkansas senator J. William Fulbright, a Democrat. In 1972, he coordinated the presidential campaign of Senator George S. McGovern in Texas. He also handled the Arkansas delegation at the Democratic National Convention.

In 1974, only months after joining the faculty at the University of Arkansas, he ran for United States representative in the state’s Third Congressional District (northwest Arkansas). He won the Democratic nomination but lost—fifty-two percent to forty-eight percent—to Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt, a Republican running for his fifth term. Clinton easily won a race for attorney general in 1976 against Democratic opponents George O. Jernigan Jr. and Clarence Cash. He was unopposed in the general election. He gained popularity when his office opposed rate increases for utilities and fought, on environmental grounds, Arkansas Power and Light’s plans to build a coal-fired plant in Independence County to generate electricity. In 1978, he easily defeated four candidates for the Democratic nomination for governor and then just as handily defeated the Republican candidate, Lynn Lowe of Texarkana (Miller County), compiling 63.4 percent of the votes. He was sworn in as governor in January 1979 at the age of thirty-two.

Governor of Arkansas
In his first term, Clinton proposed modest reforms in education and commercial regulation, particularly to control pollution, but his biggest initiative, a highway program, was expensive fiscally and politically. He persuaded the legislature to increase taxes on motor fuels and to raise other fees on vehicles. Increases in the annual registration fees of automobiles and trucks were particularly unpopular. Clinton would always say that the license fees cost him re-election in 1980, although other initiatives he undertook angered large interests. The trucking industry was irked by his efforts to raise taxes on big rigs and also by his opposition to raising the weight limits for Arkansas highways; poultry interests were irked by the highway weight issue, the wood-products industry by his office’s harsh criticism of clear-cutting forests, and bankers by his suggestion that idle state funds be distributed among banks based on their lending policies. Utility interests, which were particularly powerful, were angry over Clinton’s efforts to stiffen the regulation of rate increases, and he also battled the state’s largest electric utility, Arkansas Power and Light, over the parent company’s successful effort to make Arkansas ratepayers bear a large share of the costs of a big nuclear power plant at Port Gibson, Mississippi. Those interests tended to support his Republican opponent in 1980.

Clinton was also hurt politically by the presence of Cuban refugees at Fort Chaffee, sent there by Clinton’s friend, President Jimmy Carter. Cuba had temporarily lifted its exit restrictions and permitted 120,000 Cubans to go to the United States by boat. Carter sent 18,000 of them to Fort Chaffee. About 300 of the Cubans broke out of the compound in May and rampaged down nearby roads. During the day’s melee, sixty-two people were injured, none seriously, and three buildings at Fort Chaffee were destroyed. A video of the marauding Cubans turned up in an effective campaign ad for Clinton’s opponent in the election. In August, Carter broke a promise to Clinton and the state when he sent all the refugees from northern military posts to Fort Chaffee because the northern posts were not well equipped for winter. Frank D. White, a former banker and state industrial-development official, switched parties to run for governor in 1980. He blamed Clinton for the threat to public safety that the Cubans represented and for higher vehicle license fees. He defeated Clinton in the election with almost fifty-two percent of the vote.

Clinton began practicing law in Little Rock (Pulaski County) and prepared for the 1982 governor’s race. He defeated former Attorney General Joe Purcell and former U.S. Representative Jim Guy Tucker for the Democratic nomination and easily defeated White to regain the office. He was re-elected in 1984, 1986, and 1990 (Arkansas adopted a four-year term for governors starting in 1986).

During the campaign of 1982, Clinton promised to make major strides in education, including a large investment of public money, but he avoided saying he would raise taxes. He was handed the opportunity to raise taxes when the Arkansas Supreme Court in the spring of 1983 ruled that the system of financing the public schools was unconstitutional because it provided unequal resources for school districts. Clinton called a special session of the legislature and proposed higher taxes and a large package of school laws, including a new formula for distributing the state’s dollars among school districts more equitably and a controversial law requiring all teachers and school administrators to pass a test of basic skills. The legislature raised the sales tax from three to four percent and approved most of his other legislation. The Arkansas Board of Education adopted tougher accreditation standards for schools, which were proposed by a study commission headed by the governor’s wife.

The regular legislative session of 1985 was devoted to economic development. The legislature approved almost all of Clinton’s program, which included changes in banking laws, start-up money for technology-oriented businesses, and large tax incentives for Arkansas industries that expanded their production and jobs. Arkansas was one of the best states in new job creation in the next six years, but most of the jobs did not pay high wages, and it remained one of the worst states in average income.

Clinton tried, rather unsuccessfully, in 1987 and 1989 to raise new taxes for education, but after a resounding victory in the 1990 election over a well-financed Republican opponent, Sheffield Nelson, and the defeat of several key legislative opponents, he had major success in 1991. He had called a news conference in 1988 to announce plans to run for president but changed his mind at the last minute, explaining that the campaign and the job would be too hard on his wife and daughter, Chelsea Victoria, who was eight. Although he had promised during the 1990 campaign that he would complete his four-year term, he decided to run for president in 1992. His education reforms and his leadership of several national organizations, including the National Governors’ Conference and the Democratic Leadership Council—a group of moderate Democratic officeholders and businesspeople who sought to alter the liberal bent of the national Democratic Party—strengthened his national stature and gave him important connections.

Presidential Elections
On October 3, 1991, Clinton announced that he would run for president in 1992. He had five Democratic opponents: Senator Robert Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, former senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, Governor L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, and former California governor Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown. Although he quickly established himself as the frontrunner, his campaign was nearly derailed by accusations of marital infidelity—including a charge by a Little Rock woman named Gennifer Flowers that she had had a long-running affair with Clinton when he was attorney general and governor—and by revelations that he had taken unusual steps to avoid military service during the Vietnam War. He deflected those controversies and regained momentum. He easily won the Democratic nomination and chose Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee as his vice presidential running mate.

Having successfully led a war against Iraq a year earlier, President George H. W. Bush enjoyed high poll ratings when the campaign began, but a sluggish economy and high unemployment diminished his popularity. Clinton concentrated on the economy, promising to secure health insurance coverage for every American, reform the welfare system, enact a tax cut for the middle class, begin a national service program, reform the system of financing federal campaigns, and invest heavily in the nation’s infrastructure, which he said was deteriorating. H. Ross Perot, a wealthy Texas businessman, ran as an independent and promised to eliminate the federal budget deficit by raising taxes and cutting government spending. Clinton was helped by the weak economy and a perception that President Bush had put little emphasis on improving it, but Clinton also proved a far better campaigner, particularly in the three debates. The contrast between the aging and stiff president and the young and agile governor was especially sharp in the second debate, a town-hall arrangement where Clinton engaged questioners personally. Bush counted on his vast experience in foreign policy and the successful war to liberate Kuwait to give him an edge against the governor of what he described as a small and poor state. He called Clinton a “tax-and-spend liberal.” Clinton received forty-three percent of the popular vote to Bush’s thirty-eight percent and Perot’s nineteen percent and won even more decisively in the Electoral College, 370 to 168.

Although he had been battered by controversy during his first term and his party had lost control of both houses of Congress in 1994, Clinton had an easier election for a second term in 1996. Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, a longtime veteran of Congress and a moderate, won the Republican nomination. Perot ran again, this time as the candidate of the Reform Party, which he organized. Dole attacked Clinton’s character and pointed to his own long service in the military in World War II and in Congress. Dole’s age, seventy-three, was a subtle issue. Clinton was re-elected with forty-nine percent of the popular vote to Dole’s forty-one percent and Perot’s nine percent. Clinton won the electoral vote with 379 votes to Dole’s 159.

Domestic Record
Bitter controversy dogged Clinton from his election until he left office. He had said during his first campaign that he would lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the military, and soon after the election, he indicated that he would move quickly. Protests in Congress and from military leaders dominated the periods before and after his inauguration until he reached a compromise with service leaders: homosexuals could serve if they did not disclose their sexual orientation and did not engage in homosexual conduct. Still, the issue crippled him politically. In his first two years, he did succeed in passing a law that required companies with more than fifty workers to give workers up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave each year to cope with family problems, in addition to another law that established a national service program called AmeriCorps in which young people perform public service work for a period of time.

Two congressional battles in the first two years decided the course of his presidency. Even before he took office, Clinton was persuaded by his new economic team—including Robert E. Rubin (chairman of the National Economic Council), Laura D’Andrea Tyson (chair of the Council of Economic Advisers), Leon Panetta (director of the Office of Management and Budget), Lawrence H. Summers (undersecretary of treasury for international affairs) and Alan S. Blinder (an economic adviser)—that the nation’s critical economic need was to lower the huge federal budget deficit, which had reached $290 billion in President Bush’s last fiscal year (1992–93). Lowering or eliminating the deficit would reassure the bond markets, reduce long-term interest rates, and encourage greater business investment and more jobs. His budget package—which passed both houses of Congress without a vote to spare and without a single Republican vote—reduced spending over five years by $255 billion and increased taxes, mainly on high incomes, by $241 billion. The legislation also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provided extra income for millions of families earning less than $30,000 a year. The deficit declined sharply over the next two years and disappeared in 1998.

The other congressional battle was over national health insurance. Clinton appointed his wife to chair a task force to study insurance problems and recommend a plan for guaranteeing coverage for everyone. Under that plan, people would join an alliance in each state that would contract with insurance companies and other groups to offer insurance to members. The long, complicated legislation was opposed by many insurance companies and other healthcare groups and by every Republican in Congress. Clinton failed to work out a compromise with moderate Republicans who wanted an expanded insurance system, and the initiative died. That failure and the unpopularity of tax increases cost a number of Democrats their seats in the 1994 congressional elections, and Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, making it difficult for Clinton to get any of his proposals through Congress in his last six years.

After Republicans gained control of Congress, Clinton spent the next six years battling conservatives over the federal budget and social issues such as abortion. The Republican majority, led by the new speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, sought to cut federal spending on education, environmental protection, and Medicare and Medicaid. Clinton used his power of veto and the threat of a veto to thwart most of the cuts. Years later, he said halting all the Republican initiatives that he considered so harmful was one of his greatest achievements. When Clinton and the congressional majority could not agree on a budget in 1995 and 1996, the Republicans forced a temporary shutdown of the government. Public opinion seemed to side with the president, and Congress eventually capitulated, which greatly strengthened Clinton’s standing in the presidential election year of 1996.

Despite the stalemate with Republicans on most issues, Clinton succeeded on two major initiatives after 1994. Since 1985, when he was governor, Clinton had advocated a major overhaul of the welfare system to encourage work, and in his 1992 campaign, he had promised to “end welfare as we know it.” When Congress approved a harsher version of his proposal in 1996, he signed it into law over the objections of many in his own administration and in Congress. He had vetoed two earlier measures that were even harsher. The law limited lifetime welfare benefits to five years and required adult recipients to work after two years on welfare. In 1997, he worked out a compromise budget package with Congress that included tax cuts and spending cuts aimed at hastening a balanced budget, which was balanced the next year for the first time since 1969. The legislation also began a new children’s health insurance program, which expanded Medicaid coverage to millions more children from low- and middle-income families. Clinton also signed into law bipartisan measures to combat terrorism, allowing more spending to fight terrorism and making it easier to deport foreigners suspected of terrorism.

Foreign affairs
World communism was no longer the nation’s principal adversary when Clinton took office. Instead, he was confronted with religious and ethnic strife, genocide, and suffering in smaller and weaker countries where the interests of the United States were not clear. He was at first reluctant to commit military forces to such regions, but he developed an expansive view of the country’s strategic interest in protecting human rights and promoting stability. He sent forces to end fighting and protect civilians in Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo in the former republic of Yugoslavia. He would later state his regret that he had not done the same in 1994 when two million people were displaced and hundreds of thousands were slain in the African nation of Rwanda.

Clinton tried to arrange peace between religious and ethnic rivals in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland. His intervention brought an end to religious strife in Northern Ireland, a declaration of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and an agreement between Israel and Jordan to end their state of war.

In most foreign interventions, he was opposed by leaders of the Republican Party and sometimes, according to polls, by the public. When the Mexican peso collapsed in 1995, threatening the failure of the Mexican economy, Clinton proposed a loan package to Mexico to ease the crisis. Congress balked when polls showed public opposition to the bailout. Clinton then devised a $20 billion loan package to restore world confidence in Mexico and executed it alone. Mexico rallied and paid off the loans with interest in 1997, three years ahead of schedule.

But the major instrument of Clinton’s foreign policy was not military intervention or diplomacy but trade and economic leverage. He believed that lower tariffs and freer trade with other nations would raise the standard of living in poor nations, increase U.S. exports, and improve the American economy. Over the opposition of many in his own party who thought it would cost too many American jobs, he completed negotiations and won ratification in late 1993 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which reduced tariffs and created a free-trading bloc among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. He also finished work on a comprehensive world trade agreement called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which Congress ratified in 1994.

Investigations and Impeachment
For his entire presidency, Clinton, his wife, and members of his administration were hounded by accusations of wrongdoing. When Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate after the 1994 elections, congressional committees conducted investigations and lengthy hearings on accusations of misconduct. Also, an unprecedented seven independent counsels (special prosecutors) were appointed to investigate allegations of misconduct. A law enacted during the Watergate scandals relating to the administration of President Richard Nixon provided for the appointment of independent counsels when there were suspicions of misconduct involving the president, vice president, or other major administration officials. Most of the investigations did not involve the president. Allegations included the following: a White House aide had improperly raised funds through a private group while he ran Clinton’s national service corps, Clinton’s first agriculture secretary had accepted improper gifts from companies that his department regulated (including Arkansas-based Tyson Foods), Clinton’s commerce secretary had engaged in improper financial deals, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development had lied to FBI agents during a background check about the size of payments that he had made to a former mistress while he was a Texas mayor, Clinton’s interior secretary had lied to Congress about his role in granting a federal license for a gambling casino, and Clinton’s labor secretary had taken part in an influence-peddling scheme in a former job as a White House aide. None of those investigations produced evidence of illegal activities, although the Housing and Urban Development secretary admitted that he had not been completely truthful about payments to the mistress.

The most troublesome and damaging investigation involved a real estate deal that Clinton and his wife undertook in 1978, while he was attorney general of Arkansas. The investigation became known as “Whitewater,” after the name of the land development company, Whitewater Development Corp., which the Clintons formed with James D. and Susan McDougal of Little Rock. The four had purchased 230 acres of wilderness near the White River and Crooked Creek in Marion County and had lost money when they could not develop and sell the lots. The principal accusation was that the McDougals, and perhaps the Clintons and their real estate project, had benefited from the operations of a Little Rock savings and loan association that James McDougal formed in Little Rock in the 1980s, which eventually went bankrupt. Business deals between the McDougals and a small business lending company in Little Rock run by David Hale, a Little Rock municipal judge, also became a focus of the investigation. The probe was expanded to look into the 1993 suicide of Vincent Foster Jr.—a Little Rock lawyer who became deputy White House counsel—as well as the firing of the White House travel staff and other activities at the White House.

Yielding to Republican criticism, Clinton asked Attorney General Janet Reno in 1994 to appoint an independent counsel on Whitewater. Her appointee, a Republican lawyer named Robert B. Fiske, was later removed by a panel of judges in Washington and replaced with Kenneth W. Starr, who had been solicitor general under President George H. W. Bush.

Starr continued the investigation through the rest of the Clinton presidency. While several Arkansans were indicted in various property dealings in Arkansas, including Governor Jim Guy Tucker, neither the Clintons nor others in his administration were ever implicated in any wrongdoing in the Whitewater-related activities. The investigations concluded that Foster had committed suicide and that the firing of travel staff involved no wrongdoing.

But one part of Starr’s investigation paid off. Agents conducted lengthy inquiries into reports of marital infidelities by Clinton. A former employee of the Arkansas Industrial Development Department, Paula Corbin Jones, filed a lawsuit in 1994 alleging that Clinton had made unwanted sexual advances toward her in a Little Rock hotel room in 1991, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that trying the suit would not distract Clinton from his duties as president. In 1998, Linda Tripp, a confidante of Monica Lewinsky, an intern at the White House, gave Starr recordings in which Lewinsky talked about having oral sex with the president. Although the Lewinsky affair was unrelated to any of the Whitewater issues, Starr justified this investigation by saying it was part of a pattern of obstructing justice at the Clinton White House. On September 9, 1998, Starr gave the House of Representatives a lengthy report on Clinton’s indiscretions with Lewinsky, including his efforts to cover them up during testimony before Starr’s grand jury and during a deposition that he gave in the civil case of Paula Jones.

The House Judiciary Committee accused Clinton of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the grounds for impeaching and removing a president, and brought four articles of impeachment against him. On December 19, voting largely along party lines, the House adopted two of the articles—perjury before the grand jury and obstruction of justice—by votes of 228 to 206 and 221 to 212. Democrats charged that the impeachment proceedings were a Republican vendetta to destroy a popular president. But only the Senate can remove a president, by a two-thirds vote. On February 12, 1999, after hearing lengthy arguments presented by Republican members of the House and by defenders of the president, including a passionate closing argument by former Arkansas senator Dale Bumpers, the Senate defeated the perjury article, forty-five for and fifty-five against, and the obstruction of justice article, fifty to fifty. Starr said he would seek criminal charges against Clinton for the Lewinsky affair after the president left office, but on the day before he left office in January 2001, Clinton issued a statement apologizing for giving erroneous testimony to the grand jury, and Starr closed the investigation. Starr’s independent counsel office did not close until May 2004. Owing to the admission of giving false testimony and proceedings instituted by the Professional Ethics Committee, Clinton surrendered his license to practice law in Arkansas.

Post-presidency
Clinton’s wife decided early in 1999 to run for the U.S. Senate seat in New York being vacated by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. She and Clinton bought a house in Chappaqua, New York, to establish residency in New York, and she was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2000. Clinton retired there after leaving office on January 20, opened an office in the Harlem neighborhood, and began to write his autobiography. The book, My Life, was published in 2004 and became a bestseller. Clinton’s presidential library opened in November 2004 on the Little Rock riverfront. He traveled extensively throughout the world, particularly in Africa and Asia, where he instituted efforts to import medicine to combat the AIDS epidemic. In 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Clinton and the elder President Bush to direct humanitarian relief efforts for the victims of a tsunami that killed more than 200,000 people along the coasts of the Indian Ocean on December 26, 2004. Both were also involved in the relief efforts for the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In 2010, Clinton and George W. Bush created the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund to assist the people of Haiti after an earthquake there in January.

Summary
Clinton was among Arkansas’s most productive governors and brought about extensive reforms in public education. His long tenure ended with an extended period of job creation and moderate economic growth. He was even more ambitious as president but not as successful, partly because he dealt with a largely hostile Congress for the last six years of his presidency. He steered the Democratic Party gently away from its modern liberal tradition that traced back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, but he still succeeded in improving the economic well-being of low-income working families by $20 billion a year, with a combination of health insurance for their children, refundable tax credits for work, and tax credits for college expenses. While economists debated the extent to which his policies were responsible, his presidency marked the longest period of sustained economic growth in the nation’s history and yielded four consecutive years of federal budget surpluses. Clinton was president at the peak of U.S. supremacy in the world, and he personally basked in unprecedented global admiration.

For additional information:
Clinton, Bill. Between Hope and History: Meeting America’s Challenges for the 21st Century. New York: Random House, 1996.

———. My Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

Clinton Presidential Collection. Old State House Museum Online Collections. Clinton Collection (accessed May 18, 2011).

Conason, Joe, and Gene Lyons. The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000.

Dumas, Ernest C., ed. The Clintons of Arkansas: An Introduction by Those Who Know Them Best. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1992.

Fallows, James, et. al. “Bill Clinton and His Consequences.” The Atlantic Monthly 287 (February 2001): 45–69.

Hamilton, Nigel. Bill Clinton, An American Journey. New York: Random House, 2003.

Kalb, Marvin. One Scandalous Story: Clinton, Lewinsky & 13 Days that Tarnished American Journalism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001.

Klein, Joe. “Eight Years.” The New Yorker 76 (October 16 and 23, 2000): 188-217.

Levin, Robert E. Bill Clinton, The Inside Story. New York: Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., 1992.

Levy, Peter B. Encyclopedia of the Clinton Presidency. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.

Maraniss, David. First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995.

Marcus, Alan. “Bill Clinton in Arkansas: Generational Politics, the Technology of Political Communication and the Permanent Campaign.” Historian 72 (June 2010): 354–385.

Root, Paul, ed. To the Grassroots with Bill Clinton. Arkadelphia, AR: The Pete Parks Center for Regional Studies, Ouachita Baptist University, 2002.

Shields, Todd G., Jeannie M. Whayne, and Donald R. Kelley, eds. The Clinton Riddle: Perspectives on the Forty-second President. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2004.

Smith, Stephen A., ed. Preface to the Presidency: Selected Speeches of Bill Clinton, 1974–1992. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1996.

Takiff, Michael. A Complicated Man: The Life of Bill Clinton as Told by Those Who Know Him. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.

Related posts:

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor,  Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

 

John L. Smith to speak today at Little Rock Touchdown Club

John L. Smith is to speak at the Little Rock Touchdown Club on Monday Sept 24, 2011. I am proud of him for showing up.

Bill Vickery had some comments on the debacle on Saturday. Vickery said it totally removed the earlier nightmare he had since he was 7 years old when he witnessed his uncle Jimmy have a seizure   and his father had to grab his tongue while Jimmy was the ground and in the process had kicked over the potato salad.

Here is a rundown of John L. Smith’s career from Wikipedia.

John L. Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other people named John Smith, see John Smith (disambiguation).
For other people named John L. Smith, see John L. Smith (disambiguation).
John L. Smith
Sport(s) Football
Current position
Title Head coach
Team Arkansas
Conference SEC
Record 1-3
Biographical details
Born November 15, 1948 (age 63)
Idaho Falls, Idaho, U.S.
Playing career
1968–1970 Weber State
Position(s) Linebacker, quarterback
Coaching career (HC unless noted)
1971
1972–1976
1977–1981
1982–1985
1986
1987–1988
1989–1994
1995–1997
1998–2002
2003–2006
2009–2011
2012–present
Weber State (GA)
Montana (assistant)
Nevada (DC)
Idaho (DC)
Wyoming (DC)
Washington State (DC)
Idaho
Utah State
Louisville
Michigan State
Arkansas (ST)
Arkansas
Head coaching record
Overall 133–88 .602
Bowls 1–6
Tournaments 3–5 (I-AA playoffs)
Statistics
College Football Data Warehouse
Accomplishments and honors
Championships
2 Big Sky (1989, 1992)
2 Big West (1996–1997)
2 Conference USA (2000–2001)
Awards
Idaho Athletics Hall of Fame (2001)
Big Ten Coach of the Year (2003)

John L. Smith (born November 15, 1948) is an American college football coach who is currently the head coach of the University of Arkansas. He had been named as head coach of his alma mater, Weber State University, after the 2011 season, but left without ever coaching a regular season game (he did coach the Weber State Spring football game) to take over at Arkansas following the firing of Bobby Petrino in April 2012.[1] He was previously the head coach at the University of Idaho (1989–1994), Utah State University (1995–1997), the University of Louisville (1998–2002), and Michigan State University (2003–2006). Smith had also been an assistant at multiple programs, most recently at Arkansas under Petrino, where he was in charge of special teams from 2009 to 2011.[1] Entering the 2012 season, Smith has a career head coaching record of 132–86. (.606)

Contents

Early years and playing career

Born in Idaho Falls in eastern Idaho and raised in nearby Iona, Smith lettered in football, basketball, and track at Bonneville High School, and graduated in 1967. He played college football at Weber State College in Ogden, Utah, as both a linebacker and quarterback in the Big Sky, then a Division II conference. He graduated in 1971 with a bachelor’s degree in physical education.

Early coaching career

Smith began his coaching career as a graduate assistant at his alma mater, Weber State, in 1971. For the next 17 seasons, Smith was an assistant coach, first at Montana for five seasons (1972–76) and then at Nevada (1977–81) for five more as the defensive coordinator. He then joined Dennis Erickson as defensive coordinator and assistant head coach for seven seasons at three schools: Idaho (1982–85), Wyoming (1986), and Washington State (1987–88). The middle initial “L” became part of his public moniker in 1982, due to another John Smith on the athletic staff at Idaho, John G. Smith, the equipment manager and former head baseball coach.[2]

Head coach

After serving as an assistant head coach for Dennis Erickson for seven seasons, Smith began his head coaching career in 1989 at Idaho, where he posted a 53–21 record (.716) in six seasons. Under his leadership, the Idaho Vandals won two Big Sky championships and made the 16-team NCAA Division I-AA playoffs five times, advancing to the national semifinals in 1993. Smith’s 53 wins are the most in school history. His starting salary at Idaho was under $60,000, but in 1991 he became the first UI coach to be granted a multi-year contract.[3]

Smith inherited an 11–2 team from Keith Gilbertson that had made the I-AA semifinals in 1988, and returned All-American quarterback in John Friesz. Despite losing the first two games of the 1989 season to Washington State and Portland State, Idaho went undefeated (8–0) in conference play, the only time in school history. The Vandals lost in the first round of the I-AA playoffs, and finished at 9–3. Friesz won the Walter Payton Award and was drafted in 1990 by the San Diego Chargers and spent a decade in the NFL. Smith’s next quarterback at Idaho was southpaw Doug Nussmeier, who threw for over 10,000 yards and won the Walter Payton Award in 1993; he was drafted in the fourth round by the New Orleans Saints in 1994.

In January 1995, he left Moscow to move up to Division I-A at Utah State in the Big West, with a five-year contract exceeding $100,000 per year.[4] He stayed in Logan with the Aggies for three seasons (16–18, .470), then went east to Louisville, agreeing to a five-year deal at $375,000 per year.[5] He put together a 41–21 record (.661) in five seasons (1998–2002), including five straight bowl appearances and consecutive Conference USA titles in 2000 and 2001. Under Smith’s tutelage, quarterback Dave Ragone was a three-time Conference USA player of the year (2000–02).

Michigan State

After the 2002 season, Smith was hired as the head coach at Michigan State, which created controversy because Smith was hired before Louisville’s bowl game that season, and he did not inform his Louisville players of the decision until halftime of the bowl game, which they lost to Marshall.

2003

After opening his first season at Michigan State in 2003 with wins over Western Michigan and Rutgers, Smith’s team was unable to hold off a series of late game drives by WAC member Louisiana Tech, losing a 20–19 decision. The Spartans ended the regular season 8–4, and were then defeated by Nebraska, 17–3, in the 2003 Alamo Bowl, a game which also featured the injury of the Spartans’ anticipated star quarterback Drew Stanton while he was playing on special teams. Smith was named the Big Ten Conference Coach of the Year in 2003.

2004

The second game of the 2004 season was the second of a “home-and-home” series against Rutgers, which the Spartans lost in New Jersey, 19–14. The Spartans also lost to Notre Dame and dropped a three-overtime game against rival Michigan, but beat a top-10 ranked Wisconsin team, 49–14. The Spartans lost their final two games that season and did not receive a bowl invitation—the first time a Smith-coached team hadn’t gone to a bowl since 1997.

2005

Michigan State began the 2005 season with a 4–0 record in non-conference play including an overtime win against Notre Dame in South Bend. However, the team was only able win one game in the Big Ten and finished the year 5–7, losing several game by more than 28 points. The Spartans were again unable to beat Michigan, losing 34–31 in the second straight overtime game between the two schools.

One of the most significant games of the season was against Ohio State. The Spartans had a brief 17–7 lead in the second quarter. With 24 seconds and no time outs remaining in the first half, Michigan State faced a second down and 12 yards to go at the Ohio State 17 yard-line. Michigan State tried a running play resulting in no gain. Facing third down, Michigan State likely could have easily spiked the ball to stop the clock. However, with the clock running, it was perceived by many fans and sports commentators that chaos reigned on the MSU sideline. The confusion resulted in Michigan State lining up on the field with only ten players. A field goal attempt was blocked, and returned by Ohio State for a touchdown to cut the lead to 17–14. In half-time comments on ABC, Smith blamed the coaching staff remarking “That’s a dang coaching mistake…the kids are playing their tail off, and the coaches are screwing it up!”[6]

Michigan State finished the season 5–6, missing out on a bowl bid for the second straight year.

2006

Michigan State began 2006 with three wins and then suffered an infamous late-game loss against Notre Dame. The Spartans led 37–21 midway through the fourth quarter, but, despite a raging thunderstorm, the Irish rallied for a 40–37 victory.

The following week, Michigan State’s homecoming game, the Spartans were defeated 23–20 by an Illinois team that had not won a Big Ten game since 2004. After the game, players from both teams fought at midfield after several Illinois players tried to plant their flag at midfield of Spartan Stadium. In the post-game press conference, Smith admitted the coaches were having trouble motivating the players. Smith also slapped himself in the face as a reference to a claim by Notre Dame head coach Charlie Weis who stated that he had been hit in the face during a sideline scrum earlier that season when his Fighting Irish played Michigan State.

Following another defeat to Michigan, Michigan State hosted and lost 38–7 to top-ranked Ohio State. At halftime, Spartan Stadium had mostly emptied, with a large portion of the remaining attendees being Ohio State fans.

MSU followed up those losses with a 41–38 win at Northwestern. The Spartans, down 38–3 in the middle of the third quarter, rallied for 38 unanswered points for the largest comeback in NCAA history. The Spartans then fell to Indiana the following week.

On November 1, Michigan State decided not to retain John L. Smith, and the remainder of his contract was bought out for $1.5 million.[7] Smith and his coaching staff stayed on the job through the end of the 2006 season. Michigan State finished 4–8 (1–7 in the Big Ten). Smith was replaced by Mark Dantonio, previously the head coach of Cincinnati on November 27.[8] Smith had a record of 22–26 (.458) in his four seasons at Michigan State.

Smith has compiled a record of 132–86 (.605) in his 18 years as a college head coach. 12 of his 18 teams have participated in postseason play, including seven straight from 1997–2003. Smith is one of 18 head coaches in college football history to take three different teams to bowl games. A defensive coach for most of his career, Smith is also known as one of the disciples of the spread offense, learned from Dennis Erickson, which he introduced at Michigan State.

Return to Coaching: Arkansas & Weber State

After two years of broadcasting, Smith returned to the sidelines in 2009 as the special teams coach at the University of Arkansas under head coach Bobby Petrino, his former assistant.[9] Following his third year at Arkansas, Smith left to lead his fifth Division I program at his alma mater, Weber State, an FCS program in the Big Sky Conference.[10] Smith succeeded Ron McBride, who retired after seven seasons with the Wildcats.[9]

Prior to Smith’s first season at Weber State, the University of Arkansas fired its head coach, and Smith’s former colleague, Bobby Petrino. Almost immediately, there was considerable media speculation that Smith would return to Arkansas, and replace Petrino.[11] This was confirmed less than 2 weeks after the firing of Petrino, when multiple media outlets reported that Smith had agreed to take over the Arkansas Razorbacks football program. He was introduced as Arkansas’ 29th full-time head coach the next day.[1] The event was a reversal of roles as it was now Smith replacing Petrino as head coach (Petrino replaced Smith as head coach of Louisville following Smith’s departure in 2003). Smith signed a 10-month contract, leading to speculation that he was only taking the post on an interim basis for the 2012 season. The Razorbacks’ formal announcement described him as “head coach,” without any qualifiers; however, it also indicated that Smith’s hiring would allow Arkansas to hire “a head coach for the future of the program” in a more appropriate timeframe following the 2012 season.[12]

Personal life, family, and honors

Smith married the former Diana Flora on August 15, 1970, and they have three children: Nicholas, Kayse, and Sam. He is the uncle of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Alex Smith.[13]

Smith has earned a reputation for his adventurous attitude and actions, including para-gliding with his children in Zermatt, Switzerland, climbing 19,340-foot Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, flying in a T-38 Talon jet trainer in Texas at Randolph Air Force Base, skydiving from 14,000 feet over Greensburg, Indiana, and running with the bulls in Pamplona, Spain.

In 2000 Sports Illustrated recognized Smith as one of Idaho‘s top 100 athletes of the 20th century. He was later inducted into the Idaho Athletics Hall of Fame in 2001.

Smith filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on September 6, 2012. Smith said he began land investments when he was coach at Louisville from 1998-2002 and that he and other investors lost money when the real estate market softened.[14][15]

Head coaching record

Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/playoffs Coaches# AP°
Idaho Vandals (Big Sky Conference) (1989–1994)
1989 Idaho 9–3 8–0 1st L NCAA Division I-AA First Round
1990 Idaho 9–4 6–2 2nd L NCAA Division I-AA Quarterfinal
1991 Idaho 6–5 4–4 T–4th
1992 Idaho 9–2 6–1 1st L NCAA Division I-AA First Round
1993 Idaho 11–3 5–2 T–2nd L NCAA Division I-AA Semifinal
1994 Idaho 9–3 5–2 T–2nd L NCAA Division I-AA First Round
Idaho: 53–20 34–11
Utah State Aggies (Big West Conference) (1995–1997)
1995 Utah State 4–7 4–2 T–2nd
1996 Utah State 6–5 4–1 T–1st
1997 Utah State 6–6 4–1 T–1st L Humanitarian
Utah State: 16–18 12–4
Louisville Cardinals (Conference USA) (1998–2002)
1998 Louisville 7–5 4–2 3rd L Motor City
1999 Louisville 7–5 4–2 T–2nd L Humanitarian
2000 Louisville 9–3 6–1 1st L Liberty
2001 Louisville 11–2 6–1 1st W Liberty 16 17
2002 Louisville 7–6 5–3 3rd L GMAC
Louisville: 41–21 25–9
Michigan State Spartans (Big Ten Conference) (2003–2006)
2003 Michigan State 8–5 5–3 T–4th L Alamo
2004 Michigan State 5–7 4–4 T–5th
2005 Michigan State 5–6 2–6 9th
2006 Michigan State 4–8 1–7 T–10th
Michigan State: 22–26 12–20
Arkansas Razorbacks (Southeastern Conference) (2012–present)
2012 Arkansas 1–3 0–1 (West)
Arkansas: 1–3 0–1
Total: 133–88
      National championship         Conference title         Conference division title
#Rankings from final Coaches’ Poll.
°Rankings from final AP Poll.

Related posts:

Randy White speaks to Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 2

Randy White spoke at the Little Rock Touchdown Club yesterday. He did a great job. I have always been a big Dallas Cowboy fan. Here is a story from Arkansas Sports 360: HOW ‘BOUT THEM COWBOYS: The Touchdown Club welcomed Randy White to town this Monday. The former Dallas Cowboy defensive tackle is one of […]

Randy White speaks to Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 1

I have written a lot about the Dallas Cowboys in the past. One of my favorite stories is getting to ask Pat Summerall a question about Tom Landry and his answer was a classic one.  I simply asked him if he had a chance to interact with any Christian Coaches like Tony Dungy or Tom […]

Kiffin’s boasting comes back on him again

What should we make from USC’s shocking 21-14 loss to Stanford? Lou Holtz rightly said concerning USC, “They were not number 2 in the  country.The writers voted them there and they made a mistake. They were not the number two team.” Earlier I mentioned that Kiffin looked silly for implying that USC had overcome the […]

Lane Kiffin a great coach? I doubt it but he will stretch the rules!!!

Will Derek Dooley’s hot seat cool down?

Matt Jones speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 2

I got to see Matt Jones speak on 9-10-12 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club and I was proud of him for opening up concerning what brought his career to an end. Drugs can derail a great career. Take a look at what happened to Matt Jones: Taken in the first round by the Jacksonville […]

Matt Jones speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 1

My son Hunter and I got to hear Matt Jones speak on 9-10-12 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. When asked about what to do when you are up against a wall like this team is, he responded that he remembers how it felt to lose in the 6 overtime game in Knoxville and to […]

Howard Schnellenberger speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 4

I got to hear Howard Schnellenberger speak on Sept 4, 2012 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. I did not know that he played football for the University of Kentucky. In fact, just last year Kentucky ended a long losing streak to Tennessee by winning in Lexington. Schnellenberger was responsible for catching the winning touchdown […]

Howard Schnellenberger speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 3

I got to hear Howard Schnellenberger speak at the Little Rock Touchdown Club on Tuesday Sept 4, 2012. Schnellenberger was good at building programs. Ex-coach enjoyed building programs By Jeff Halpern Posted: September 5, 2012 at 5:10 a.m. Staton Breidenthal Howard Schnellenberger speaks Tuesday at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. LITTLE ROCK — Howard Schnellenberger […]

Howard Schnellenberger speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 2

I got to hear Howard Schnellenberger talk on Sept 4, 2012 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. Schnellenberger said that Bear Bryant had the greatest ability to both instruct a player with criticism but then build him up also. He made a point of making sure he did both during a practice. Under Schnellenburger direction […]

GOP want to eliminate several Depts of Federal Government to get back to vision of founders?

Is Washington Bankrupting America?

Uploaded by on Apr 20, 2010

Be first to receive our videos and other timely info about economic policy. Subscribe at http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
————————-
According to a recent poll, 74 percent of likely voters are extremely or very concerned about the current level of government spending. And 58 percent think the level of spending is unsustainable.

Is the public right? Is Washington bankrupting America? Some facts from the video:

Spending per household has risen over 40 percent in the last 10 years and is set to do so again in the next 10 pushing debt (and interest on the debt) to unprecedented levels. But that’s just a result of PAST spending…

Our government owes $106 trillion in FUTURE spending commitments – that cannot be paid for.

We can solve it, but politicians will have to make tough choices. Increasing taxes can’t do the trick ($106 trillion is equivalent to taking all of the taxable income from every American nine times over), nor is it fair to saddle taxpayers with a problem created by government irresponsibility.

We need real spending reform. Merely returning to the spending per household levels of the 1990s would balance the budget in three years.

___________

I wish we would eliminate several departments of the federal government  and in the process get back to vision of founders. That is what the GOP Platform has done in 2012. Take a look at this article below by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute.

I wish the Republican Platform was binding.

Too bad it’s meaningless fluff

Why? Because the GOP, for all intents and purposes, has just proposed to eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, agencies, and departments.

More specifically, they endorsed the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which means they put themselves on record in favor of getting rid of all federal spending and intervention that is inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited central government.

Here’s some of the story, as reported by The Hill,

All federal spending should be reviewed to ensure powers reserved for the states are not given to the federal government, according to the GOP platform approved Tuesday. The platform language is meant to ensure all federal spending meets the requirements of the 10th amendment, which prohibits state powers from being given to the feds. “We support the review and examination of all federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, operational inefficiencies, or abuse of power to determine whether they are performing functions that are better performed by the States,” the platform reads. “These functions, as appropriate, should be returned to the States in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

For those of you who don’t have your Cato Institute pocket Constitutions handy, here’s what the 10th Amendment says.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, the 10th Amendment is basically a back-up plan to re-emphasize that the federal government was prohibited from exercising power in any area other than what is specified in the enumerated powers section of Article I, Section VIII.

And if you look at those enumerated powers, that pretty much invalidates much of what happens in Washington.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the Republican platform will have less impact on a potential Romney presidency than this blog.  In other words, Republicans don’t intend to live up to this promise. Heck, they don’t even know that they have such a position. That’s why I included the asterisk in the title and must draw your attention to this fine print.

*Offer not good when GOP holds power.

But I suppose it’s good that they included this language in the platform, even if it’s merely empty political rhetoric

P.S. If they did abide by the 10th Amendment, it means that Obamacare also would be repealed.

P.P.S. Yes, this implies limits on democracy. Our Founding Fathers, contrary to E.J. Dionne’s superficial analysis, were opposed to untrammeled majoritarianism and wanted to make sure 51 percent of the people couldn’t vote to rape and pillage 49 percent of the people.

Open letter to President Obama (Part 145)

Milton Friedman – Poverty and Equality

Uploaded by on Feb 18, 2011

In response to questions, Professor Friedman explains how capitalism is a more effective approach to the alleviation of poverty than is socialism.

_________________

Milton Friedman had to put up with someone yelling during his speech in the clip above but he handles it great.

____________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

So many times the “do-gooders” tell us that the government should take from the rich and give to the poor in order to make every equal at the finish line. However, is it the government’s job to do such thing. Look at the final conclusion of the article below:

“Free markets may yield odd results and certainly unequal outcomes, but the greater opportunities and prosperity have made the tradeoff worthwhile for American society.”

Our Economic Past | Burton W. Folsom Jr.

Equality, Markets, and Morality

September 2008 • Volume: 58 • Issue: 7

Burton Folsom, Jr. is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of New Deal or Raw Deal?, to be published by Simon & Schuster this year.

The subject of “equality” is the source of much political debate. Ever since the founding era, free-market thinkers have argued for equality of opportunity in the economic order. Equality, in other words, is a framework, not a result. In modern terms the goal is a level playing field. Government is a referee that enforces property rights, laws, and contracts equally for all individuals.

What the free-market view means in policy terms is no (or few) tariffs for business, no subsidies for farmers, and no racism written into law. Also, successful businessmen will not be subject to special taxes or the seizure of property.

In America this view of equality is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”) and the Constitution (“imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” and “equal protection of the laws”). Much of America’s first century as a nation was devoted to ending slavery, extending voting rights, and securing property and inheritance rights for women—fulfilling the Founders’ goal of equal opportunity for all citizens.

Progressives and modern critics of equality of opportunity have launched two significant criticisms against the Founders’ view. First, that equality of opportunity is impossible to achieve. Second, to the extent that equality of opportunity has been tried, it has resulted in a gigantic inequality of outcomes. Equality of outcome, in the Progressive view, is desirable and can only be achieved by massive government intervention. Let’s study both of these objections.

To some extent, of course, the Progressives have a valid point—equality of opportunity is, at an individual level (as opposed to an institutional level) hard to achieve. We are all born with different family advantages (or disadvantages), with different abilities, and in different neighborhoods with varying levels of opportunity. As socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw said on the subject, “Give your son a fountain pen and a ream of paper and tell him that he now has an equal opportunity with me of writing plays and see what he says to you.”

What the Progressives miss is that their cure is worse than the illness. Any attempt to correct imbalances in family, ability, and neighborhood will produce other inequalities that may be worse than the original ones. Thomas Sowell writes, “[A]ttempts to equalize economic results lead to greater—and more dangerous—inequality in political power.” Or, as Milton Friedman concluded, “A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

Failure During the New Deal

Sowell’s and Friedman’s point is illuminated by the failed efforts of the federal government to reduce inequalities during the New Deal. In the early 1930s the United States had massive unemployment (sometimes over 20 percent). In 1932 President Herbert Hoover supported the nation’s first relief program: $300 million was distributed to states. This was not a transfer from richer states to poorer states but a political grab by most state governors to secure all they could. Illinois played this game well and secured over $55 million, more than New York, California, and Texas combined.

Massachusetts, with almost as many people as Illinois, received zero federal money. Massachusetts had much poverty and distress, but Governor Joseph Ely believed states should try to supply their own needs and not rush to Washington to gain funds at someone else’s expense. Ely therefore promoted a variety of fundraising events throughout his state to help those in need. “Whatever the justification for [federal] relief,” Ely noted, “the fact remains that the way in which it has been used makes it the greatest political asset on the practical side of party politics ever held by any administration.”

In 1935 President Franklin Roosevelt confirmed Ely’s beliefs by turning the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which he had established, into a gigantic political machine to transfer money to key states and congressional districts to secure votes. Roosevelt and his cohorts used the rhetoric of removing inequalities as a political cover to gain power. Reporter Thomas Stokes won a Pulitzer Prize for his investigative research that exposed the WPA for using federal funds to buy votes.

The use of tax dollars, then, to mitigate inequality failed because—whatever the good intentions—the funds quickly became politicized.

Presidential (and congressional) authority to tax and to transfer funds from one group to another also proved to be a dangerous centralization of power. Taxation increased both in size and complexity. The IRS thus became a weapon a president could use against those who resisted him. “My father,” Elliott Roosevelt observed of his famous parent, “may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.”

Sowell and Friedman indeed recognized that efforts to remove inequalities would create new inequalities, perhaps just as severe, and would also dangerously concentrate power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. But Sowell and Friedman have readily conceded that when markets are left free, the inequality of outcomes is not necessarily morally justified. In other words, some people—through luck or inheritance—become incredibly rich and others, who may have worked harder and more diligently, end up barely earning a living. Rewards, as F. A. Hayek, among others, has noted, are “based only partly on achievements and partly on mere chance.” Societies are more prosperous under free markets, but individual success and failure can occur independently of ability and hard work.

Progressive Claims in Light of History

What the historical record does seem to demonstrate is that the richest men in American history have been creative entrepreneurs who have improved the lives of millions of Americans and have achieved remarkable upward mobility doing so. For example, the first American to be worth $10 million was John Jacob Astor, a German immigrant and a son of a butcher. Astor founded the largest fur company in the United States, transforming tastes and lowering costs in clothing for people all over the world.

John D. Rockefeller, the first American to be worth $1 billion, was the son of an itinerant peddler. Yet Rockefeller, with little education or training, went into the business of refining oil and did it better than anyone in the world. As a result, he sold the affordable kerosene that lit up most homes in the world. (He had a 60 percent world market share in the late 1800s.)

Henry Ford, the son of a struggling farmer, was the second American billionaire. He used the cheap oil sold by Rockefeller and cheap steel that was introduced by immigrant Andrew Carnegie to make cars affordable for most American families. The most recent wealthiest men in the United States—Sam Walton and Bill Gates—both came from middle-class households and both added much value for most American consumers.

Free markets may yield odd results and certainly unequal outcomes, but the greater opportunities and prosperity have made the tradeoff worthwhile for American society.

______________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com