Mountain climber Alex Honnold seems to defy gravity, scaling sheer, steep rock faces with no rope and apparently no fear. Lara Logan reports.
_______________________
Last night in his 60 minute interview Alex Honnold said he would quit mountain climbing eventually. However, I think it would be hard to quit. Look at the life of John Bachar. Did he quit? He was in his fifties still climbing.
John Bachar 1957-2009
By Luke Laeser
Enlarge
Bachar on the Yosemite classic Midnight Lightning (V8). Photo by Phil Bard.
Bachar on the Yosemite classic Midnight Lightning (V8). Photo by Phil Bard.
Enlarge
John Bachar soloing Crack-a-go-go (5.11c), Cookie Cliff, Yosemite, California. Photo by Phil Bard
John Bachar soloing Crack-a-go-go (5.11c), Cookie Cliff, Yosemite, California. Photo by Phil Bard
On July 5, the climbing world lost one of its greatest icons: John Bachar. While climbing alone at the Dike Wall near Mammoth Lakes, California, Bachar fell to the ground, though the circumstances of the fall remain unclear. Bachar died later at Mammoth Hospital on Sunday afternoon.The free-spirited Californian was a symbol of American free climbing and free soloing, with a strong traditional climbing ethic. Bold, blonde-haired, surfer-esque and ever-charismatic Bachar will be remembered for many of his earlier achievements, including his daring 1980s free solos of Yosemite routes like Outer Limits (5.10c) (Climbing Magazine Issue no. 84), New Dimensions (5.11a), Butterfingers (5.11a), Butterballs (5.11c), as well as the sport routes Enterprise (5.12b), in the Owens River Gorge, and The Gift (5.12c), at Red Rocks (Climbing Magazine Issue no. 192).
On a rope, the Bachar-Yerian(5.11c R/X), a route he climbed on Medlicott Dome with Dave Yerian in 1981, still remains as one of Tuolumne Meadows’ most notorious routes, with only 13 bolts — all placed on the lead and ground-up — in 500 exposed feet of climbing. Along with fellow free soloist Peter Croft in 1986, the pair made the El Capitan and Half Dome link-up in only 14 hours, a feat that to this day is still considered incredible.John was 52 years old leaves behind his son Tyrus.Pete Thomas of the Los Angeles Times has written an informative obituary here.
In every sport there are men, myths and legends. In the world of rock climbing and free soloing without a rope, there is only one name that fits all three: John Bachar.
Controversial and uncompromising, Bachar pushed the boundaries of what was possible, and at the same raised the world’s standards.
Enlarge
Bachar’s Revenge (5.9). Photo by Christian Pondella.
Bachar’s Revenge (5.9). Photo by Christian Pondella.
A true rock star as a teenager, Bachar soloed 5.11 when 5.12 did not yet exist. He bouldered harder and climbed stronger than anyone. He refused to compromise his strong traditional style “ground up” ethics along the way.John Long says, “There has never been anyone like John Bachar, and there never will be again.”Peter Croft says, “Yosemite was THE place, Bachar was THE guy, that makes him more than just a climber.”
Rob Robinson says, “John Bachar was unquestionably the greatest climber of our generation.”
English soccer player David Beckham arrives with his wife Victoria Beckham for the wedding service of Britain’s Prince William and Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey, London, April 29, 2011.(Credit: Pool,AP Photo/Jasper Juinen)
NEW YORK – (CBS) If the British tabloids are right, former Spice Girl Victoria Beckham is about to get some major bling.
Published reports say that her husband, soccer star David Beckham, is prepared to spend up to 2.9 million pounds on jewelry for his wife from the collection of the late film legend Elizabeth Taylor.
Taylor, known for her fabulous jewels, died in March at age 79. Her jewelry, art, designer clothing and other memorabilia will sold at auction Dec. 13-16 at Christie’s in New York. It will tour the country for two months before the auction.
A portion of the proceeds from the exhibition admissions and publications related to the sales will be donated to The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation.
Beckham and the singer known as “Posh” Spice have been married since 1999. They have four children, including daughter Harper Seven, who was born in July. Harper Seven has three brothers.
The 36-year-old Beckham, who models as well as plays soccer for the L.A. Galaxy, told talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres last week that he would welcome a fifth child.
“Soccer Saturday” Best Goals 2010 World Cup Part 1 2010 FIFA World Cup – Best Goals So Far…. Pt 1 Uploaded by jacob8898 on Jun 15, 2010 These are all the best goals scored in the 2010 FIFA World Cup in the first 5 days. Please rate, leave a comment, and Subscribe!!! 2010 FIFA World […]
Soccer Saturday: Highlights of USA v Brazil 2011 World Cup Womens World Cup 2011 + USA vs Brazil – Megan Rapinoe to Abby Wambach 2:2 goal in the 122′ USA VS Brazil 2011 Womens World Cup Highlights Hope Solo & Abby Wambach – U.S. Soccer Team (FIFA) *Interview (July19/11)
Goalkeeper is lucky sometimes (Soccer Saturday) Vegalta Sendai were up 1-0 in the first half of their J-League match against defending champions Nagoya Grampus Eight when the losing home side’s keeper, Yoshinari Takagi, came out of his area to collect the ball. He took too long to clear it., allowing Atsushi Yanagisawa to take the ball […]
Vegalta Sendai were up 1-0 in the first half of their J-League match against defending champions Nagoya Grampus Eight when the losing home side’s keeper, Yoshinari Takagi, came out of his area to collect the ball. He took too long to clear it., allowing Atsushi Yanagisawa to take the ball off him for a seemingly […]
My 10th best player is Brian McBride and I think this video clip says it all. Brian McBride – US soccer legend Brian McBride From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other people of the same name, see Brian McBride (disambiguation). Brian McBride Personal information Full name Brian Robert McBride[1] Date […]
World Cup 2010 – Spain – All Goals Wilson’s 10th pick for the greatest soccer team ever! Every other player is a superstar!!! Everette Hatcher says that Italy in 2006 had the 10th best team. By the way, the USA tied them!! Italy – 2006 World Cup Highlights _______________________________________ World Cup 1958 Final – Sweden […]
I thought about this one to be number one but I changed my mind. George Best- ‘The Best Tribute’! George Best _______________________________ Wilson’s 1st pick is both Young Lionel Messi – Rare Clips HD shows rare clips of the best player ever, Messi!!! Lionel Messi 2011 – This is my life story I love this […]
Former Arkansas Razorback and Chicago Bears great Dan Hampton shows off his Super Bowl ring while talking with Sport Talk – The High School Show host Dave Barr about everything from Ryan Mallett to high school sports. He was signing autographs during our remote at the Pleasant Grove Wal-Mart in Rogers.
_______________________
Former Arkansas Razorback Dan Hampton refuses President Obama’s invitation to the White House. I would have gone if it were me. It is an honor and you have to respect the office in my view. I am not a Democrat, but I would love to see the band Chicago play at 4pm this Saturday with the Clintons. The Arkansas Times Blog reported that tickets are free.
My good friends Craig and Dana Carney grew up in Jacksonville with Dan and remember when he was a band geek in the 10th grade for the Jacksonville Red Devils.
President Obama invited the 1985 Super Bowl championship team to visit Washington, D.C., earlier this month. The Bears had been scheduled to meet with President Reagan in January of 1986, but the Challenger disaster forced the White House to cancel the planned meeting.
Hampton gave three reasons for not attending:
1. Wives and children of the players weren’t invited.
That does seem like an oversight by whoever planned the meeting. Granted, children of the players are most likely adults by now so it’s not like a 5-year-old is getting snubbed, but surely the White House could have pulled out some more folding chairs for the event.
2. He says he’s “not a fan of the guy in the White House.”
A frequent reason given by those who decline White House invites, whether it be for Obama or any president who came before him. This sounds lame and takes a tremendous lack of perspective. Declining an opportunity to go to the White House and shake hands with the President of the United States because you don’t like the guy’s opinion on health care seems petty. Does Hampton not have any friends who are Democrats?
3. “It was 25 years ago. Let it go.”
I’m sort of on Hampton’s side on this one (though not enough to make it a valid excuse for declining). It’s not like every Super Bowl team was going to the White House back then; the Bears were only the second team to get the invite. The 25-year-old canceled visit is a thinly veiled excuse to invite the team from Obama’s adopted hometown for a visit. What about other championship squads? Where’s John Riggins’ and The Hogs’ invite? The 1974 Dolphins can’t get any love?! (And Florida’s a swing state, Barack!)
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) stole a march on the Obama Administration this morning by filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the 11th Circuit’s Obamacare decision.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) had announced on Monday that it was not going to ask all 11 judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to review en banc the August 12 decision of a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit that found the individual mandate unconstitutional. This opened up a path to an appeal by DOJ to the Supremes.
Dan Mitchell gives 12 reasons Obamacare will fail.
__________________
However, with this petition, the NFIB jumped ahead of Eric Holder’s slow-moving DOJ (which until Monday had done everything it could to slow-walk this case filed by 26 states and the NFIB). The NFIB is obviously not appealing the three-judge panel’s opinion about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate. But the NFIB is appealing the portion of the panel’s decision that held that the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the Obamacare legislation.
The NFIB is asking the Court to overrule this holding, since “Congress itself deemed [the mandate] ‘essential’ to the Act’s new insurance regulations.” Given that the 11th and 6th Circuits have issued “directly conflicting final judgments about the facial constitutionality of [Obamacare’s] mandate,” the case is one that the Court should obviously take up given its interest in eliminating conflicting opinions in the courts of appeal.
What also differentiates this particular case from the many other lawsuits that have been filed against Obamacare is the “all star” lineup of Supreme Court litigators that the NFIB and the 26 states have lined up to argue their case before the Supreme Court. It includes Michael Carvin, a former DOJ official who has argued (and won) numerous cases before the Court; Gregory Katsas, a former DOJ official who was a clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas; Kevin Marshal, another former DOJ official and Thomas clerk; Hashim Mooppan, a former Justice Antonin Scalia clerk; and Randy Barnett, a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and professor at Georgetown.
The lawyers for the states include Paul Clement, former Bush Administration Solicitor General; Lee Casey, another former DOJ official who clerked for Alex Kozinski, who is now the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit; and David Rivkin, another Supreme Court litigator with wide experience in the government, including in the White House and the DOJ.
The government lawyers in the DOJ’s Office of the Solicitor General who will be arguing the constitutionality of Obamacare will have their work cut out for them.
PrintThe U.S. Postal Service just posted a $3.1 billion loss for the third quarter and the outlook for the rest of the year is bleak. The USPS wants to save money by closing post offices. I recently examined this issue in an op-ed for the Daily Caller:The United States Postal Service has lost over $20 billion since 2006 and is projected to lose another $8 billion this year. Government Mail is about to max out its $15 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, and it faces $66 billion in unfunded obligations due to excessive labor costs. With more and more people using email, sending text messages and paying their bills online, the Postal Service’s long-term prospects are undeniably bleak.Although USPS management has been able to cut costs, the savings haven’t been nearly enough to stem the rising tide of red ink. If the USPS were a private business, it might be able adapt to the rapidly changing economic landscape and evolve into a viable commercial entity. But it’s not a private business — it’s a branch of the federal government. As a result, the USPS has been hopelessly hamstrung by constant meddling from politicians, as exemplified by the difficulty the USPS faces when trying to close post offices.
Postal management announced this week that it will weigh the closure of 3,700 of its 32,000 post offices, hoping to save $200 million a year. Those savings are miniscule compared to the $8 billion alone that the USPS will lose this year, but it’s a start.
Unfortunately, there’s a very good chance that those members of Congress whose districts will be affected by a post office closure will raise a stink. In 2009, for example, the USPS looked at closing 3,200 post offices. Following a congressional outcry, the number under consideration was reduced to a mere 140. Two years later, only 80 have actually been closed.
The USPS is required to provide services to all communities, including areas where post offices have low traffic and are not cost-effective. Before closing a post office, the USPS must provide customers with at least 60 days of notice before the proposed closure date, and any person served by the post office may appeal its closure to the Postal Regulatory Commission. The USPS cannot close a post office “solely for operating at a deficit.” That’s a problem because four out of five post offices are operating at a loss.
Can anyone seriously imagine any other business not being able to close a store or factory for “solely operating at a deficit”? That would be a recipe for bankruptcy. While the USPS is structured like a business — revenues from the sale of postal products are supposed to cover costs and it receives virtually no federal appropriations — Congress prevents it from actually operating like a private business by inhibiting its ability to reduce costs, improve efficiency or innovate.
Postal management is attempting to head off the inevitable congressional interference by creating “Village Post Offices” in the communities affected by the closings. Local businesses, such as pharmacies and grocery stores, would be allowed to offer postal products and services. This makes sense because whereas post offices used to generate almost all postal retail revenue, 35 percent is now generated through alternative channels like USPS.com, self-service kiosks and private stores.
Closing post offices is a small step towards cutting costs and “rationalizing” the retail network, which the USPS management recognizes as critical. However, that won’t be enough to overcome economic reality — let alone the control freaks in Congress. Ultimately, if the USPS is to continue operating like a business instead of becoming just another taxpayer-funded bureaucracy, Congress is going to have to hand the reins over to the private sector. That means privatizing the United States Postal Service.
This article appeared in the Daily Caller on July 28, 2011.
English soccer player David Beckham arrives with his wife Victoria Beckham for the wedding service of Britain’s Prince William and Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey, London, April 29, 2011.(Credit: Pool,AP Photo/Jasper Juinen)
NEW YORK – (CBS) If the British tabloids are right, former Spice Girl Victoria Beckham is about to get some major bling.
Published reports say that her husband, soccer star David Beckham, is prepared to spend up to 2.9 million pounds on jewelry for his wife from the collection of the late film legend Elizabeth Taylor.
Taylor, known for her fabulous jewels, died in March at age 79. Her jewelry, art, designer clothing and other memorabilia will sold at auction Dec. 13-16 at Christie’s in New York. It will tour the country for two months before the auction.
A portion of the proceeds from the exhibition admissions and publications related to the sales will be donated to The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation.
Beckham and the singer known as “Posh” Spice have been married since 1999. They have four children, including daughter Harper Seven, who was born in July. Harper Seven has three brothers.
The 36-year-old Beckham, who models as well as plays soccer for the L.A. Galaxy, told talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres last week that he would welcome a fifth child.
“Soccer Saturday” Best Goals 2010 World Cup Part 1 2010 FIFA World Cup – Best Goals So Far…. Pt 1 Uploaded by jacob8898 on Jun 15, 2010 These are all the best goals scored in the 2010 FIFA World Cup in the first 5 days. Please rate, leave a comment, and Subscribe!!! 2010 FIFA World […]
Soccer Saturday: Highlights of USA v Brazil 2011 World Cup Womens World Cup 2011 + USA vs Brazil – Megan Rapinoe to Abby Wambach 2:2 goal in the 122′ USA VS Brazil 2011 Womens World Cup Highlights Hope Solo & Abby Wambach – U.S. Soccer Team (FIFA) *Interview (July19/11)
Goalkeeper is lucky sometimes (Soccer Saturday) Vegalta Sendai were up 1-0 in the first half of their J-League match against defending champions Nagoya Grampus Eight when the losing home side’s keeper, Yoshinari Takagi, came out of his area to collect the ball. He took too long to clear it., allowing Atsushi Yanagisawa to take the ball […]
Vegalta Sendai were up 1-0 in the first half of their J-League match against defending champions Nagoya Grampus Eight when the losing home side’s keeper, Yoshinari Takagi, came out of his area to collect the ball. He took too long to clear it., allowing Atsushi Yanagisawa to take the ball off him for a seemingly […]
My 10th best player is Brian McBride and I think this video clip says it all. Brian McBride – US soccer legend Brian McBride From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other people of the same name, see Brian McBride (disambiguation). Brian McBride Personal information Full name Brian Robert McBride[1] Date […]
World Cup 2010 – Spain – All Goals Wilson’s 10th pick for the greatest soccer team ever! Every other player is a superstar!!! Everette Hatcher says that Italy in 2006 had the 10th best team. By the way, the USA tied them!! Italy – 2006 World Cup Highlights _______________________________________ World Cup 1958 Final – Sweden […]
I thought about this one to be number one but I changed my mind. George Best- ‘The Best Tribute’! George Best _______________________________ Wilson’s 1st pick is both Young Lionel Messi – Rare Clips HD shows rare clips of the best player ever, Messi!!! Lionel Messi 2011 – This is my life story I love this […]
This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the flat tax would benefit families and businesses, and also explains how this simple and fair system would boost economic growth and eliminate the special-interest corruption of the internal revenue code. www.freedomandprosperity.org
______________________
President Obama is just trying to mislead people when he says that raising taxes on the rich is the answer to America’s problems.
It’s hard to keep track of all the tax hikes that President Obama is proposing, but it’s very simple to recognize his main target — the evil, nasty, awful people known as the rich.
Or, as Obama identifies them, the “millionaires and billionaires” who happen to have yearly incomes of more than $200,000.
This sounds like a pretty good scam, at least if you’re a vote-buying politician, but there is one little detail that sometimes gets forgotten. Raising the tax burden is not the same as raising revenue.
That may not matter if you’re trying to win an election by stoking resentment with the politics of hate and envy. But it is a problem if you actually want to collect more money to finance a growing welfare state.
Unfortunately (at least from the perspective of the class-warfare crowd), the rich are not some sort of helpless pinata that can be pilfered at will.
The most important thing to understand is that the rich are different from the rest of us (or at least they’re unlike me, but feel free to send me a check if you’re in that category).
Ordinary slobs like me get the overwhelming share of our income from wages and salaries. The means we are somewhat easy victims when the politicians feel like raping and plundering. If my tax rate goes up, I don’t really have much opportunity to protect myself by altering my income.
Sure, I can choose not to give a speech in the middle of nowhere for $500 because the after-tax benefit shrinks. Or I can decide not to write an article for some magazine because the $300 payment shrinks to less than $200 after tax. But my “supply-side” responses don’t have much of an effect.
For rich people, however, the world is vastly different. As the chart shows, people with more than $1 million of adjusted gross income get only 33 percent of their income from wages and salaries. And the same IRS data shows that the super-rich, those with income above $10 million, rely on wages and salaries for only 19 percent of their income.
This means that they — unlike me and (presumably) you — have tremendous ability to control the timing, level, and composition of their income.
Indeed, here are two completely legal and very easy things that rich people already do to minimize their taxes – but will do much more frequently if they are targeted for more punitive tax treatment.
They will shift their investments to stocks that are perceived to appreciate in value. This means they can reduce their exposure to the double tax on dividends and postpone indefinitely taxes on capital gains. They get wealthier and the IRS collects less revenue.
They will shift their investments to municipal bonds, which are exempt from federal tax. They probably won’t risk their money on debt from basket-case states such as California and Illinois (the Greece and Portugal of America), but there are many well-run states that issue bonds. The rich will get steady income and, while the return won’t be very high, they don’t have to give one penny of their interest payments to the IRS.
For every simple idea I can envision, it goes without saying that clever lawyers, lobbyists, accountants, and financial planners can probably think of 100 ways to utilize deductions, credits, preferences, exemptions, shelters, exclusions, and loopholes. This is why class-warfare tax policy is so self-defeating.
And all of this analysis doesn’t even touch upon the other sure-fire way to escape high taxes – and that’s to simply decide to be less productive. Most high-income people are hard-charging types who are investing money, building businesses, and otherwise engaging in behavior that is very good for them – but also very good for the economy.
But you don’t have to be an Ayn Rand devotee to realize that many people, to varying degrees, choose to “go Galt” when they feel that the government has excessively undermined the critical link between effort and reward.
Indeed, if Obama really wants to “soak the rich,” he might want to abandon his current approach and endorse a simple and fair flat tax. As explained in this video, this pro-growth reform does lead to substantial “Laffer Curve” effects.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both reduced the relative burden of government, largely because they were able to restrain the growth of domestic spending. The mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to show how Reagan and Clinton succeeded and compares their record to the fiscal profligacy of the Bush-Obama years.
_____________________________
Over the years the liberals keep on calling for more spending but our solution is to restrain government growth. The funny thing is that BILL CLINTON BALANCED THE BUDGET BY RESTRAINING SPENDING BUT NOW DEMOCRATS ACT LIKE THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN THE RECIPE FOR SUCCESS.
Good fiscal policy doesn’t require miracles — or dramatic showdowns. All politicians have to do is limit the growth of the public sector. Combined with normal revenue growth, this approach eliminates red ink very quickly.
This is what happened in the U.S. during the Clinton-Gingrich years. Between 1994 and 1999, total government spending increased by an average of just 3% annually. The budget deficit, which was projected in early 1995 (18 months after the 1993 tax increase!) to remain above $200 billion for the rest of the century, quickly became a budget surplus once spending was restrained.
Fiscal discipline also works when it is tried in other nations. Data from the Economist Intelligence Unit reveal that four nations — Canada, Ireland, Slovakia and New Zealand — dramatically reduced budget deficits in recent decades by imposing strict limits on government spending.
Daniel Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.
Interestingly, these data also reveal that the tax burden was stable or falling during these periods of fiscal progress.
Canada, for instance, was in deep fiscal trouble. The burden of government spending had climbed above 53% of gross domestic product in 1992 and the deficit was more than 9% of economic output. Then lawmakers embarked on a new course. Government was put on a diet, and between 1992 and 1997 Canada’s budget rose from $374 billion Canadian to $391 billion, an average annual increase of less than 1%.
This period of frugality paid big dividends. The burden of government spending dropped to 44% of GDP. The budget deficit, meanwhile, completely disappeared. After five years of fiscal discipline, record levels of red ink were transformed into a small budget surplus.
Ireland was in a tailspin by the mid-1980s. The burden of government spending had skyrocketed to more than 60% of GDP and the nation’s deficit was consuming more than 12% of economic output. To avoid a crisis, Irish policy froze the budget. The Irish budget was 14.7 billion euros in 1985, and it was only 14.7 billion euros in 1989.
This four-year spending freeze was enormously successful. The burden of government spending plunged to less than 43% of GDP. The budget deficit also fell dramatically, consuming just 2.7% of economic output at the end of this period.
Slovakia, like many other nations that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet empire, was saddled with a large public sector. To solve the problem, policymakers restrained government. From 2000-03, the Slovakian budget grew from 11.5 billion euros to 11.8 billion euros, an average increase of 1.3%.
This modest period of fiscal discipline had a big impact. The burden of the public sector dropped from 36.9% of GDP down to 29.2% of economic output. During this time, the deficit fell from 8.7% of GDP to 2.0%. Combined with pro-growth policies such as the flat tax and personal retirement accounts, the nation has enjoyed robust growth.
Last but not least, let’s look at New Zealand. The burden of the public sector by the end of the 1980s had climbed to more than one-half of economic output. The Kiwis staged a turnaround by putting a clamp on public-sector spending. Between 1990 and 1995, the New Zealand Budget actually dropped from $39.3 billion New Zealand to $38.8 billion.
This five-year spending freeze put the nation in a much stronger position. The burden of government spending plummeted by more than 10 percentage points of GDP in New Zealand, dropping from 53.5% of economic output down to 43.1%. And a deficit of 4.5% of GDP was transformed during those five years to a surplus of 2.8% of GDP.
This pattern should not be a surprise. Restraining government spending generates good results because the private sector grows faster than the public sector.
Many self-proclaimed deficit hawks in Washington argue that deficit reduction is impossible without substantial tax increases. But American policymakers implemented a big tax cut, in 1997, during the period when the deficit became a surplus.
In other nations, the tax burden actually dropped by significant amounts during the relevant periods — falling by 8.1 percentage points of GDP in Ireland, 1.1 percentage points of GDP in Slovakia, and 3.1 percentage points of GDP in New Zealand. The overall tax burden did rise in Canada, but only by 0.3 percentage point of GDP.
The moral of the story is that limiting the growth of government spending is the right recipe. If the politicians in Washington replicated the spending discipline of these other nations, we would enjoy similar results.
Two percent annual spending increases would lead to fiscal balance by 2021. Limiting spending growth to 1% annually would balance the budget by 2019. A spending freeze would balance the budget by 2017.
Spending Restraint, Part II: Lessons from Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand
Nations can make remarkable fiscal progress if policy makers simply limit the growth of government spending. This video, which is Part II of a series, uses examples from recent history in Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand to demonstrate how it is possible to achieve rapid improvements in fiscal policy by restraining the burden of government spending. Part I of the series examined how Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were successful in controlling government outlays — particularly the burden of domestic spending programs. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org
When it comes to Social Security, Republicans should stop treating seniors like the feeble-minded demographic portrayed in commercials written by 13-year-olds on Madison Avenue.
It’s like the home security commercial targeting seniors for a medical alert pendant to be worn around the neck. White-haired “Mom” didn’t want one because “it was for “some old person.” But daughter, seen patting Mom’s hand, “talked Mom into it.” Next we see “Mom” carrying a basket of laundry down a flight of uncarpeted stairs without holding the handrail. Sure enough, Mom’s lying at the bottom of the staircase pressing her alert button because she’s fallen, broken her hip and can’t get up because “the pain was terrible.” “Mom” and daughter are so glad that she was wearing her alert and could summon help.
You expect to see a disclaimer at the end: “Don’t try this at home. These are actors who are paid to behave stupidly. You could hurt yourself.”
Madison Avenue convinced the marketing geniuses at the security company that they can sell more medical alerts by scaring seniors even if it insults them. I don’t patronize a company run by upstarts who think senior is synonymous with senile. I doubt that many seniors do.
Gov. Mitt Romney and political commentators, such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris, are treating seniors as condescendingly as the commercial. To hear them tell it, if Gov. Rick Perry calls Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme,” seniors will have a seizure, and press a political alert hanging around our neck, which will connect us to the Obama campaign.
Not likely, unless we fall down the stairs and land on our head.
Seniors didn’t put Barack Hussein Obama in the White House. Those of us 65 and over are the only voting bloc who chose McCain over Obama—and by eight percentage points.
Obama’s disapproval rating is at 55 percent and his approval rating is 44 percent. It means that other voting blocs are beginning to wise up to what seniors knew in 2008. Seniors are the least likely group to vote for Obama in 2012.
For one thing, we rejected Obama’s outrageous and vague promise to fundamentally transform the greatest nation in history. And certainly not by a community organizer with a resume thinner than our hair who thinks voting “absent” is leadership and that America should repent for its greatness.
Our sight and hearing may be diminished, but we still know bovine scatology when we smell it.
Seniors deal with hard truth every day. Many of us handle it without our beloved spouse at our side. Health and financial concerns are more pressing. We live on a fixed income and still know the checkbook has to balance. We’re not the demographic maxing out credit cards and living beyond our means. Many dear old friends reside only in our memories. We know that our days dwindle down to a precious few. But it doesn’t mean that our minds have departed.
We certainly can handle the truth that Social Security isn’t sustainable for our children and grandchildren. We know that without a major restructuring, it will remain a pyramid scheme deficient of funds and contributors, a sham promise of retirement security for future generations.
The Social Security trustees released a 244-page report on Monday revealing the gravity of the situation. Page 13 states that payroll tax contributions for 2010 were $544.8 billion; total expenditures were $584.9 billion. That’s a $40 billion deficit. The Department of Labor released a report on Monday stating that there are only 1.5 workers supporting Social Security for every one recipient.
During the Republican debate on Monday night, Romney again accused Perry of scaring seniors by calling Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme.” Where does Romney get the idea that we were clueless until Perry mentioned it?
What is over the top is Romney’s pretense or delusion that Perry coined the term. Stanley Kurtz of National Review cites scores of uses of the term by Republicans and Democrats, academics, and journalists, long enough for Romney to have heard it long before Perry said it. Kurtz concludes in “Perry and the Ponzis”:
Our historical tour of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme confirms what we already knew: Rick Perry’s remarks are uncharacteristically bold for a politician, most especially a candidate in the midst of a presidential race. Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades.
So the question today is not simply whether Rick Perry will be punished or rewarded for showing the honesty even many liberal commentators once pined for. The more interesting issue raised by this historical investigation may be the fate of the Democratic Party and the media. Where today are the liberal and centrist Democrats who only yesterday called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and supported bold reforms? Where now are the columnists and editors at Newsweek and the New York Times willing to reward truth-tellers and to criticize reporters who cover for cowardly politicians? The fate of Rick Perry’s blunt talk may tell us more than we want to know, not only about Social Security, but also about who we are and what we have become.
What scares most seniors is that our country will be lying at the bottom of the stairs, broken and unable to get up if it remains in the hands of Barack Obama.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2) John Stossel – Government’s Ponzi Scheme Uploaded by LibertyPen on Apr 21, 2010 A look at the Social Security system. By contrast, Bernie Madoff seems like a shoplifter. http://www.LibertyPen.com Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security ______________________________ Governor Rick […]
Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? I just started a series on this subject. In this article below you will see where the name “Ponzi scheme” came from and if it should be applied to the Social Security System. Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! 9/14/2011 | Email John Stossel | Columnist’s Archive Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I […]
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 1) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. Max Brantley wants to keep insisting that this will be Perry’s downfall but think that truth will win out this time around. This is a series of articles […]
I have got several comments during the last 35 weeks that my blog has been in existence and the reaction as been positive and negative. My evangelical and conservative political views have generated the most vocal response. Here are some of my favorite blog posts: 27 Club How should we then live? Series by Francis […]
I got this off the internet. I don’t agree with the comments below. For instance, I do think that Security is a Ponzi scheme. Uploaded by PostingsPlus on Sep 8, 2011 Who do you think stood out the most as a leader in this debate? Share you thoughts on http://www.postingsplus.com, a new political social network. […]
Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security Dan Mitchell on Social Security I have said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and sometimes you will hear someone in the public say the same thing. Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner […]
On the Arkansas Times Blog the person using the username “the outlier” noted: Saline, leave SS out of the mix. It is solvent through 2037, and can be made solvent indefinitely with minor tweaks. So many people think that the Social Security is a great investment plan and it may only need a few tweaks. […]
On the Arkansas Times Blog on June 11, 2011 the person going by the username Jake de Snake noted,”Current empirical evidence indicates that the American welfare is successful in reducing poverty, inequality and mortality considerably. Public pensions, for instance, are estimated to keep 40% of American seniors above the poverty line.” If Social Security was […]
Hopefully the House of Representatives will tell President Obama his plan will not pass. It is very costly and would not accomplish anything positive. In fact, the White House tells us that this plan will be paid for by the rich and no one will notice at all. Take a look at this video clip from the Cato Institute:
Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Policy Options University of Chicago Press (2010).
President Obama hopes that his jobs plan will be passed quickly by Congress. It shouldn’t be passed at all.
The president’s speech centered on two key ideas: additional spending on construction projects and hiring incentives, and a tax cut for low- and middle-class families through an extension and expansion in the temporary payroll tax cut scheduled to expire this year.
The total package is expected to cost about $450 billion — about half the size of the stimulus enacted in 2009. However, a quick look at statistics on domestic investment, trade, and consumption suggests that this new stimulus is not needed. Indeed, it would be a mistake to pass it if the objective is to create sustainable job growth.
Congress should ignore Obama’s repeated calls to pass his domestic policy proposals.
The president linked his spending proposals to the need to put construction workers back to work. These workers are the largest group among those who lost jobs during the 2007-09 recession, initially from the housing-sector bust and later because of a steep decline in investment spending by firms that ditched plans to add to their production capacity. But data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that both private and total domestic investment spending (mostly the former) are already recovering from the decline they suffered during the recession.
Growth in investment spending, which cratered after the first quarter of 2008, is now back to its prerecession level. That means the lack of progress in reducing the unemployment rate is not because firms are not spending to increase capacity, but because there is a mismatch in jobs available and worker skills. Increasing government spending on additional construction projects is therefore misguided: It will simply slow the change in skills and training that workers must undergo to be successful in a changing economy. We might want to “out-educate, out-invest, and out-innovate the rest of the world,” but doing so by siphoning away resources that private firms could invest, while encouraging a stagnant skill pool, is the wrong direction.
That brings us to the payroll-tax cuts that are intended to stimulate consumption spending. Again, however, BEA data show that private consumption growth is already on the mend. The steep decline in consumption growth during 2008-09 has already been restored.
Consumption growth averaged 1.3 percent per year from 2002 to ’07 and this growth has already recovered back to above 1.0 percent per year since the second quarter of 2009. This is consistent with a recovery in firms’ expectations of sustained growth in demand and should lead to continued recovery in domestic investment spending. Adding a stimulus to consumption spending does not appear justified, except to purchase an insurance policy for Obama’s reelection bid at taxpayer expense.
Foreign trade is the one sector where BEA data show the balance of trade and income has worsened since early 2009. A renewed push to expand trade agreements and markets is the only economically sound element in the president’s speech to Congress on job creation.
Obama said that every dollar of the new spending and tax cuts will be paid for. The question is, who will pay and when? The clear answer is that the election insurance policy the president is demanding will be deficit financed. The only payment mechanisms Obama identified was a one-line exhortation for the super-committee to “do more” and a vague reference to working on Medicare reform.
Finally, cutting payroll taxes but keeping the Social Security and Medicare trust funds whole by transferring IOUs to them shifts the burden of funding entitlements to taxes on capital income. Warren Buffet notwithstanding, taxing capital income is well known to degrade economic incentives to save and invest — a policy contradictory to the president’s objective of creating sustainable job growth. Such a policy may deliver a bang, in terms of jobs, that the president wishes today, but it will demand more bucks and induce more job losses in the future.
Congress should ignore Obama’s repeated calls to pass his domestic policy proposals.
Enlarge
English soccer player David Beckham arrives with his wife Victoria Beckham for the wedding service of Britain’s Prince William and Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey, London, April 29, 2011.(Credit: Pool,AP Photo/Jasper Juinen)
Former 
The Daily Hatch 
Rick Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented
Rick Perry and Mitt Romney went after each other at the debate over this term “Ponzi scheme.”
Janet M. LaRue
Romney’s Ponzi Phobia
When it comes to Social Security, Republicans should stop treating seniors like the feeble-minded demographic portrayed in commercials written by 13-year-olds on Madison Avenue.
It’s like the home security commercial targeting seniors for a medical alert pendant to be worn around the neck. White-haired “Mom” didn’t want one because “it was for “some old person.” But daughter, seen patting Mom’s hand, “talked Mom into it.” Next we see “Mom” carrying a basket of laundry down a flight of uncarpeted stairs without holding the handrail. Sure enough, Mom’s lying at the bottom of the staircase pressing her alert button because she’s fallen, broken her hip and can’t get up because “the pain was terrible.” “Mom” and daughter are so glad that she was wearing her alert and could summon help.
You expect to see a disclaimer at the end: “Don’t try this at home. These are actors who are paid to behave stupidly. You could hurt yourself.”
Madison Avenue convinced the marketing geniuses at the security company that they can sell more medical alerts by scaring seniors even if it insults them. I don’t patronize a company run by upstarts who think senior is synonymous with senile. I doubt that many seniors do.
Gov. Mitt Romney and political commentators, such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris, are treating seniors as condescendingly as the commercial. To hear them tell it, if Gov. Rick Perry calls Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme,” seniors will have a seizure, and press a political alert hanging around our neck, which will connect us to the Obama campaign.
Not likely, unless we fall down the stairs and land on our head.
Seniors didn’t put Barack Hussein Obama in the White House. Those of us 65 and over are the only voting bloc who chose McCain over Obama—and by eight percentage points.
Obama’s disapproval rating is at 55 percent and his approval rating is 44 percent. It means that other voting blocs are beginning to wise up to what seniors knew in 2008. Seniors are the least likely group to vote for Obama in 2012.
For one thing, we rejected Obama’s outrageous and vague promise to fundamentally transform the greatest nation in history. And certainly not by a community organizer with a resume thinner than our hair who thinks voting “absent” is leadership and that America should repent for its greatness.
Our sight and hearing may be diminished, but we still know bovine scatology when we smell it.
Seniors deal with hard truth every day. Many of us handle it without our beloved spouse at our side. Health and financial concerns are more pressing. We live on a fixed income and still know the checkbook has to balance. We’re not the demographic maxing out credit cards and living beyond our means. Many dear old friends reside only in our memories. We know that our days dwindle down to a precious few. But it doesn’t mean that our minds have departed.
We certainly can handle the truth that Social Security isn’t sustainable for our children and grandchildren. We know that without a major restructuring, it will remain a pyramid scheme deficient of funds and contributors, a sham promise of retirement security for future generations.
The Social Security trustees released a 244-page report on Monday revealing the gravity of the situation. Page 13 states that payroll tax contributions for 2010 were $544.8 billion; total expenditures were $584.9 billion. That’s a $40 billion deficit. The Department of Labor released a report on Monday stating that there are only 1.5 workers supporting Social Security for every one recipient.
During the Republican debate on Monday night, Romney again accused Perry of scaring seniors by calling Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme.” Where does Romney get the idea that we were clueless until Perry mentioned it?
What is over the top is Romney’s pretense or delusion that Perry coined the term. Stanley Kurtz of National Review cites scores of uses of the term by Republicans and Democrats, academics, and journalists, long enough for Romney to have heard it long before Perry said it. Kurtz concludes in “Perry and the Ponzis”:
Our historical tour of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme confirms what we already knew: Rick Perry’s remarks are uncharacteristically bold for a politician, most especially a candidate in the midst of a presidential race. Yet Perry’s Ponzi-scheme claim is in no way unprecedented. On the contrary, the Ponzi comparison has been a staple of conservative warnings about Social Security’s financial soundness for decades.
So the question today is not simply whether Rick Perry will be punished or rewarded for showing the honesty even many liberal commentators once pined for. The more interesting issue raised by this historical investigation may be the fate of the Democratic Party and the media. Where today are the liberal and centrist Democrats who only yesterday called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and supported bold reforms? Where now are the columnists and editors at Newsweek and the New York Times willing to reward truth-tellers and to criticize reporters who cover for cowardly politicians? The fate of Rick Perry’s blunt talk may tell us more than we want to know, not only about Social Security, but also about who we are and what we have become.
What scares most seniors is that our country will be lying at the bottom of the stairs, broken and unable to get up if it remains in the hands of Barack Obama.
Related posts:
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2)
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 2) John Stossel – Government’s Ponzi Scheme Uploaded by LibertyPen on Apr 21, 2010 A look at the Social Security system. By contrast, Bernie Madoff seems like a shoplifter. http://www.LibertyPen.com Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security ______________________________ Governor Rick […]
Only difference between Ponzi scheme and Social Security is you can say no to Ponzi Scheme jh2d
Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? I just started a series on this subject. In this article below you will see where the name “Ponzi scheme” came from and if it should be applied to the Social Security System. Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! 9/14/2011 | Email John Stossel | Columnist’s Archive Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I […]
Despite Brantley’s view,Social Security really is a Ponzi scheme (Part 1) (jh1d)
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 1) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. Max Brantley wants to keep insisting that this will be Perry’s downfall but think that truth will win out this time around. This is a series of articles […]
My philosophy and my favorite blog posts
I have got several comments during the last 35 weeks that my blog has been in existence and the reaction as been positive and negative. My evangelical and conservative political views have generated the most vocal response. Here are some of my favorite blog posts: 27 Club How should we then live? Series by Francis […]
Video of Republican Debate of Sept 7, 2011
I got this off the internet. I don’t agree with the comments below. For instance, I do think that Security is a Ponzi scheme. Uploaded by PostingsPlus on Sep 8, 2011 Who do you think stood out the most as a leader in this debate? Share you thoughts on http://www.postingsplus.com, a new political social network. […]
Social Security a Ponzi scheme?
Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security Dan Mitchell on Social Security I have said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and sometimes you will hear someone in the public say the same thing. Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner […]
Social Security need a few tweaks or is it a ponzi scheme?
On the Arkansas Times Blog the person using the username “the outlier” noted: Saline, leave SS out of the mix. It is solvent through 2037, and can be made solvent indefinitely with minor tweaks. So many people think that the Social Security is a great investment plan and it may only need a few tweaks. […]
Milton Friedman called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, but liberals keep praising it
On the Arkansas Times Blog on June 11, 2011 the person going by the username Jake de Snake noted,”Current empirical evidence indicates that the American welfare is successful in reducing poverty, inequality and mortality considerably. Public pensions, for instance, are estimated to keep 40% of American seniors above the poverty line.” If Social Security was […]