Speaker Boehner and House Republicans Abandoned Efforts for Debt-Reduction Deal

Tomorrow the lame stream and cable news pundits will be atwitter with the news that Speaker Boehner this evening notified the White House that he and House Republicans have pulled out of talks with the President, the White House, Democrats and Senate Leaders. The "comprehensive debt reduction talks were in fact a "sham" with the Democrats campaigning for higher taxes verses reducing more spending.

The democrats in recent weeks have continued to call tax deductions, "government expenses" and "federal benefits" to corporations and the wealthy. When did "not confiscating one's income" become and expense for government. Numbers do not lie but Liars do lie with figures and rhetoric.

Corporations pay taxes and then when they distribute income to management and employees, they also pay taxes. When corporations are not over taxed, they have the ability to reinvest in operations and to create new jobs. Government cannot create real jobs that create new products and provide future income subject to taxes.  Government jobs are subject to  government funding.  Only a small portion is ever returned via taxes on employee earnings.    The Obama Administration and Federal agencies have refused to get out of the way of business and industry and to stop killing private sector jobs.  And every dollar government gives away to foreign countries and on "boondoggle" programs lost forever.

"Americans are set to face the highest tax burden in history!"

President Obama was scheduled to meet tomorrow - Sunday - with congressional leaders to resume talks on the debt limit. Primarily, it was a White House media effort to help control  criticism of Obama's continued excessive time on the golf course, trips, campaigning, and other activities. Some were advocating that meeting would signal the start of “hard bargaining” after Thursday’s debt talks left the parties far apart.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today regarding his withdrawal form the ongoing debt limit discussions with the White House: "Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase."

The Speaker was being nice in using the words "good faith efforts."   In fact, Democrats have not shown such an effort. Their focus has been on promoting tax increases and promoting voter class warfare.

Abigail White posted on the Scribe today prior to the withdrawal announcement by Speaker Boehner the following comment on the planned Sunday meeting, "If that isn’t enough reason to keep Democrats from proposing tax increases, perhaps the ambiguity of our nation’s economic future is.

Americans are set to face the highest tax burden in history. Families will be hit by unprecedented taxation levels by 2020 without the extension of current tax rates. This means more economic stagnation and less prosperity.

The American Legislative Exchange Council has found that higher taxes, new spending, and more debt will deepen the financial crisis. If tax hikes are included in any sort of deal, it is only a matter of time before workers, employers and the entire nation are burdened by more than they can handle."

Take a look at the following chart:

The ARRA News Service applauds Speaker Boehner for leaving the this .  As identified in prior articles, the majority of the American people want their representative in the "People's House" "to listen and commit to three things: "Cut, Cap, and Balance” in any response to the debt limit and the debt crisis. While the Obama administration was simply more taxes and continued big spending, the people see that no agreement can be reached without:

• Cut spending to slash the deficit in half next year (requiring about $380 billion in spending cuts according to CBO)
• Cap spending so it aligns with average revenues (ratcheting quickly down to 18% of GDP from current 24%).
• Send a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification (with high hurdle for tax hikes and 18% of GDP spending cap).

---

Tags: Debt Reduction, Talks, White house, John Boehner, Speaker, President Obama, White house, Democrats, higher taxes, tax burden, history To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Socialism Via The Empowerment of Permanent Federal Agencies

The below letter to the editor is by Robert "Bob" McDowell, Jr. He is a Professional Engineer and Geologist with over 50 years experience in creating drilling prospects, supervising drilling, well completion, production operation, and pipeline design for oil and gas including repair of problem wells. McDowell is a conservative and active in the Oklahoma Republican Assembly.

---

Bob McDowell

By Bob McDowell: It seems that the Obama Administration and its appointed department heads are determined to push through as many of the economy destroying rules, that have the force of law because Congress refuses to have a vote on each proposal, as they possibly can before the next election. This could be in the hope that they will have established so much power by then that it will be almost impossible to reverse the rush to Socialism that has been going on for decades.

Evidence for this conclusion is the daily reports of new rules and edicts flowing out of "foggy bottom" (Washington D.C.), where it has long been thought that the elected representatives of the voters soon after arriving became infected with what has been referred to as "Potomac Fever." In this epidemic those succumbing to it seem to have lost all semblance of common sense or loyalty to those who elected them, the promises made to get elected, or the historical principles of the political Party under whose banner they ran.

Otherwise those in Congress would mandate that each house would hold an open 'yes or no' recorded vote on each of these, sometimes totally stupid, rules dreamed up by the bureaucrats receiving inflated pay and benefits not available to those in the business world. Actually, from my reading of the U.S. Constitution, there is no provision that would allow these departments to have the power to establish 'law' on the whim of one, or a group, individual. Thus, the Congresses that have established these many small kingdoms stand in violation of the Constitution and should be held accountable, on an individual basis. That means that those who voted for them could, and should, be prosecuted for their law-breaking. Any of us would be in prison for comparable conduct.

Part of the problem in attempting to reverse the ever accelerating trend to Socialism here was the enacting of the "Civil Service Laws" in the 1930's during the administration (dictatorship) of Pres. F. D. Roosevelt. The premiss was that it was historically true that with each change in management (the White House) there was a wholesale clearing out of the employees under the long time premiss that "to the victor belong the spoils", commonly referred to as the "Spoils System". Under that, the incoming administration evaluated each and every government employee and only retained, if any, those deemed to be of similar ideals.

Actually, there is some practicality to that system. At present, we have the problem that employees, as differentiated from appointees, are held over from one administration to the next and carry with them their personal biases and opinions. As a result it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the incoming administration to establish the changes promised on which they were elected. In some cases there is total disloyalty and attempted disruption.

It is my opinion that this was the basis behind the establishment of the 'Civil Service' laws in the first place. Much of the trend towards Socialism begun during the Woodrow Wilson administration were reversed by those following him. FDR and his advisors had noted this and were determined to make there beginnings of this movement permanent. His administration was responsible for the depression of the 1930's extending longer than it should have by the institution of heavy taxation with a steeply graduated income tax rate on the "wealthy", excepting himself and his friends. Remember, the income taxes had only been instituted less than 20 years earlier and were a 'flat rate' tax, where everyone paid the same percentage, and were instituted under the guise of "tax the rich". Sound familiar??

---

Tags: Bob McDowell, Oklahoma, Socialism, Federal agencies, Congress, White House To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Runaway Slave - The Documentary

Bill Smith, Editor: It has been mentioned before that Arkansas had suffered from 136 years of "plantation politics." The prior was focused on the existence and general problems of "plantation politics" which have kept Arkansans to varying degrees under its tyranny.

However, some of our fellow Arkansans have been more severely affected and controlled by the tyranny and deceptive practices of "plantation politics." In addition, the history of the two major political parties clearly shows with respect to people of color an extreme variance of ideals and respect. This makes many conservatives wonder how black Americans could have been and remain supportive of a political party previously supportive of and at times controlled by people who were members of the KKK. A political party that opposed desegregation, opposed blacks voting, and hung black elected Republicans. A political party that blocked black children from school, refused to eat in restaurants or to drink from the same water fountains, supported abortion of black babies to control their numbers, incarcerated a disproportionate number of black males, and even opposes in principles the values and beliefs espoused in black places of worship.

It is a historical fact that the Republican Party that promoted civil rights laws and the equal rights amendment. Although Republicans are indeed not perfect, they advanced the cause of equality and opportunity based on individual merit. Why did the abused align with their abuser? Was it threats and intimidation? These issues and many more will be addressed in the upcoming documentary detailed below.

With the extreme overreach of government at all levels, those who were not so concerned about what happened to others found themselves very concerned about what was happening to them and their families. Those asleep or not concerned were awakened and became very concerned. In the process of awakening, people of different ethnic origins, race, creed, color, gender, political party, etc., found themselves on the streets together protesting against Big Government. Then formed and met in TEA Parties, Patriot Groups, and varied other groups.

Citizens were rediscovering their common roots as Americans and refocusing on the Declaration of Independence and grasping that their rights come from the Creator and not from government. Unfortunately, many people still are confused and look to government to solve their problems, to provide for them, while a group of political progressive elites are promoting the enslavement of people to the dictates of government.

With the aforementioned awakening, "Truth" shined forth and a light shined on the deeds and intent of government. The Political Plantation masters were not and are not happy.

With continued discourse, awakened citizens have become zealous for the cause of liberty. One of the awakened zealots for freedom and liberty is Pastor C.L. Bryant. He is currently involved in the making of a documentary film called the "Runaway Slave." Bryant focuses on the deception perpetrated on black Americans by ideological slavery which is a part of plantation politics. Below are comments by the developers of the documentary and a movie trailer for the upcoming movie Runaway Slave.

---

Pastor C.L.. Bryant^*

Runaway Slave - The Documentary is identified as honest discussion about black conservatives in America.

The makers of the breakout movie "Tea Party: The Documentary Film" explore the phenomenon of Black Conservatives in their new film Runaway Slave.

Runaway Slave is a new documentary that exposes the economic slavery of the Black community to the Progressive policies of the US government and how Black Conservatives are leading the fight so all Americans can be “free at last.”

Runaway Slave follows, C.L. Bryant, former NAACP Chapter President and self-professed “Democratic radical” turned pastor, political activist and Black Conservative. As a first-hand witness of the civil rights movement and a member of an interracial family; C.L. provides unique insight into an issue that is rarely black and white.

Today, groups such as the NAACP and other civil rights leaders are peddling the Black community to the lowest bidders. “There is a 50-year old lie that has caused an entire people to become harlots to the political idea that government knows what is best,” C.L. Bryant. Are today’s civil rights leaders merely the overseers of today’s Progressive plantations?

Hear, C.L. and other black conservatives discuss how they are confronted within the black community. They address the alliance the Black Community has formed with the Democratic Party fueled by the Mainstream Media. Through accusations of “racism” leveled at the Tea Party by the NAACP, Black Conservatives in the Tea Party have stepped to the foreground to extol the virtues of fiscal accountability, pro-life values and personal responsibility.

C.L. traces former paths of runaway slaves through the Underground Railroad. In the history of Harriet Tubman, C.L. returns to the plantation to free the slaves of liberal politics. Will you go with him?

From the slave ports of New Orleans, where slaves worked the Mississippi Delta and jazz was borne, C.L. explores the race-based controversy surrounding hurricane Katrina. Media images and news reports of thousands of Blacks huddled inside the Super Dome begs the question, what is the state of New Orleans’ race relations today? C.L. challenges the residents on their view of government then vs. now.

C.L. travels north to Chicago’s infamous Cabrini-Green Housing project situated in the middle of Chicago’s two wealthiest neighborhoods. He explores the history of Cabrini-Green and exposes the lingering effects of the Great Society and welfare programs on the Black community.

In Atlanta, the heart of the Civil Rights movement and the birthplace of Martin Luther King, Jr., what is happening with race and politics today? Sometimes referred to as “The Black Mecca,” according to BlackDemographics.com, only 30% of Black households in Atlanta are headed by married couples while households headed by Single women is a close 28%. Males living below poverty head 17% of all Black households in Atlanta. What would MLK, Jr. say about Atlanta today? Is the Black community “free at last?”

From Jefferson’s Monticello, C.L. fires point blank at the intense racial debate surrounding our founding fathers, the US Constitution and American history.

There are more Black Conservatives running for office than any time in US history. What is the impetus behind this rise in traditional Conservative values of smaller government and fiscal accountability? C.L. speaks one-on-one with politicians and candidates for elected office, community activists and political leaders. Listen as they state what has driven them to this point in their journey. Is their message being received?

Through interviews with mothers, fathers, small business owners and everyday Americans and footage from the epicenter of national events, Runaway Slave will have an honest discussion on race and politics that is being swept under the mat of political correctness and Progressive policies.

Despite the best efforts of the government and political leaders, in exchange for their 95% support of Progressive policies, the Black community has 34% of its population on welfare, 72% of its children born out of wedlock and a 36% abortion rate. What is causing the black community to generate these kinds of statistics? There is an urgency to bring the truth about of the Conservative principles of fiscal accountability and personal responsibility to the 95% of the Black community that feels beholden to the Democratic Party and to Americans who are prisoners of Progressivism.

To follow the films progress, visit http://www.runawayslavemovie.com/ . Below is the present trailer for the movie:

---

^*C.L. Bryant, a native of Shreveport, LA, has a Masters in Theology, is a licensed and ordained Baptist minister and pastor of 32 years. He has has traveled extensively through the U.S., South America and on missionary journeys in the Amazon. He is a former president of the NAACP’s Garland, Texas Chapter and former self-professed “Democratic Radical” and former host of television’s Focus on Reality. He now believes the values that he once vehemently upheld has led the Black community into a state of bondage to the US government. He is unafraid to talk religion and politics, is a Tea Party Patriot, a charter member of the Red River Tea Party and the Shreveport/Bossier Tea Party, co-founder of the Desoto Parish Grassroots, founder of the national movement One Nation Back to God and Fellow at FreedomWorks in Washington, D.C.

---

Tags: plantation politics, America, Unites States, Pastor C.L. Bryant, documentary, Runaway Slave, movie, video trailer, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

The Rush Reports

Bill Smith, Editor: I don't often do this. But, sometimes the voice of sanity must be highlighted. Visit the following links and then share the content and concepts in your calls and emails to your elected Representative and Senators. Consider the other points and his 2012 Warning! Rush Limbaugh has mapped it out for you and our elected officials!

Rush Limbaugh on the Debt Limit, Deficit, Tax Hikes, Social Security:

• GOP Must Not Accept the Premise That Congress Has to Hike Taxes
• Rubio: Which One of Your Taxes Will Create Jobs, Mr. President?
• Explanation: the Debt vs. the Deficit
• Obama: Raise the Debt Limit So I Can Keep Being Irresponsible
• The Establishment, Not the Base, is Pressuring Republicans and Lying to Us With Threats of a Dire Default
• Where's the Civility, Democrats?
• Don't Buy Talk of SocSecurity Cuts

Rush Limbaugh on Unemployment, Obama Gun Running:

• O's Unemployment is a Disaster
• Furious: The Obama Regime Gave 2,000 Guns to Mexican Drug Lords

Warning by Rush Limbaugh:

• A Tea Party Third Party Candidate Will Guarantee Obama's Reelection

---

Tags: Rush Limbaugh, Debt Limit, Deficit, Tax Hikes, Social Security, Unemployment, Obama Gun Running, 2012 Election To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Democrat Voter Fraud in East Arkansas

State monitors to observe a special election for a vacant East Arkansas House seat that has drawn complaints of voter fraud. The state Board of Election Commissioners voted today to send monitors to Crittenden County for the special election. - Arkansas News

“Testimony clearly demonstrates voter fraud is occurring by Democrats in the House District 54 race in Crittenden County. Meanwhile, Democrat Candidate Hudson Hallum, the Crittenden County Democrat Committee and the Democrat Party of Arkansas are refusing to acknowledge the illegal corruption happening on their watch. Hallum’s dishonest campaign is taking advantage of voters in Crittenden County. There is absolutely no room for this type of behavior in the Arkansas House of Representatives. Crittenden County deserves better and the Democrat Party needs to disavow their candidate and join us in demanding a fair election process.” - Republican Party of Arkansas Executive Director Chase Dugger

---

Republican party of Arkansas - A fair and honest election process is under attack by the campaign of Democrat Hudson Hallum in the Arkansas House District 54 race in Crittenden County!

Voters have reported absentee ballot fraud is occurring, with one resident claiming Hallum’s campaign workers were “hustling votes” and “bullied her” to cast an absentee ballot, and when she refused they allegedly stole her ballot and filled it out for her! As a result, the Arkansas State Police have now launched an official investigation.

Hallum’s dishonest campaign is taking advantage of voters in Crittenden County.  There is absolutely no room for this type of behavior in the Arkansas House of Representatives. Crittenden County deserves better and the Democrat Party of Arkansas needs to disavow their candidate and join us in demanding a fair election process.

Not only that, but Democrat Governor Mike Beebe recently endorsed Hallum stating, “He knows the value of putting others before self.” Will the Governor retract his support after this apparent illegal voter fraud? Looks like Democrat Hudson Hallum knows the value of putting himself before voters.

Call the Democrat Party at 501-374-2361 and ask why they are silently condoning the disenfranchisement of Arkansas voters!

It's time for an honest conservative to represent the people in Crittenden County! It's time to elect Republican John Geelan! Election Day is July 12! To donate to John Geelan, please go to geelan54.org.

---

From ABC Channel 24 Memphis:
AR State Police Investigate Voter Fraud In Crittenden County

Click picture for video

Reported by Randy Whitley: WEST MEMPHIS, AR - Voter fraud in Crittenden County, that's what Arkansas State Police are investigating. They’re looking into a Democratic primary run-off between Kim Felker and Hudson Hallum two months ago. Only a few votes separated the two, now early voting is underway for the general election.

Those accusations of voter fraud center around absentee ballots taken to the Crittenden County Courthouse. The only problem is some voters say those ballots never made it. A few of those that did were changed.

“They was hustling for votes. They weren't professional or anything. They was hustling votes,” Macy Johnson said describing Hudson Hallum’s campaign workers. She claims men from his campaign bullied her for her absentee ballot. When she wouldn't cave, she claims one of Hallum's campaign workers took the blank ballot.

“I know I didn't vote so he had to fill it out,” she said.“And that vote turned out for who?” abc24.com asked. “Hudson Hallum,” she replied.

Macy Johnson isn’t alone. According to documents from the Second District Prosecuting Attorney, similar stories were reported about voting irregularities in the Democratic primary run-off election. Hallum barely won the face-off against his opponent Kim Felker, 890 votes against her 882. But the absentee votes went overwhelmingly in Hallum's favor. He had 401 to Felker’s 69.

ABC24.com caught up with Hallum at the Crittenden County Courthouse and talked with him about the investigation and the allegations against his campaign workers. Hallum: “As far as what they're doing we don't know. Out on the ground, I'm not out there with them. I would like to think that's not going on in this election.”

ABC24: “But since you don't know, there's a possibility the people working on your campaign may actually have committed voter fraud.” Hallum: “Well I can't say one way or another what anybody is doing when I'm not there with them so I wouldn't want to say whether they did something like that or not.”

In the meantime, voters like Macy Johnson are saying it for him. “If my vote appeared at the courthouse as if I voted and I didn't vote, that was breaking the law.” Sooner or later the truth will come out.

ABC24 contacted Arkansas State Police but they say they cannot comment because the investigation is still open. Kim Felker would not comment fearing backlash from the Democratic party in Crittenden County.

---

Tags: Arkansas, voter fraud, absentee ballots, Crittendon County, Arkansas Election Commission To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

DeMint: Obama Trying to ‘Run Out the Clock’ With Debt Limit Talks

In an interview, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, claimed that President Obama has no real intention of striking a deal with Republicans on the debt ceiling. Rather, he said, the talks between congressional leaders and the White House have been efforts to “run out the clock up against his so-called deadline of August the second” in order to paint Republicans as “irresponsible.”

The president fully intends to wait it out until then, DeMint said, “so that he can have a crisis” – which of course smacks of former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s infamous prescription for reform-via-crisis.

DeMint also discussed other facets of the debt ceiling debate, including the Treasury Department’s plans for averting default in the event that all parties cannot come to an agreement, and the potential that the administration would invoke the 14th Amendment to bypass congressional action.

“The president has been very alarmist” on the debt limit issue, DeMint said. He reiterated that Republicans would “give the president some increase in the debt limit in return for permanent structural change, and that permanent change is a constitutional requirement that we have to balance our budget.” . . . [Full Story]
Full audio of the interview

---

Tags: Senator, Jim DeMint, SC, South Carolina, interview, audio, Obama, Debt Limit, Balanced Budget Amendment To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Hatch Blasts White House For Dismissing Balanced Budget Amendment

Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

SALT LAKE CITY – Today, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) blasted the White House for saying a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution is “bad for the economy,” and for saying the nation’s over $14 trillion debt “is not a constitutional issue.” The lead sponsor of a Balanced Budget Amendment that has the support of all 47 Senate Republicans, Hatch issued the following statement:

“The Constitution belongs to the people. They get to determine what is a constitutional issue – not the White House. If the debt isn’t a ‘constitutional issue,’ as the White House claims, why is it that every state in the union, but Vermont has a constitutional balanced budget requirement? With our debt climbing higher every single day, the only way to absolutely guarantee that we never end up in this situation again is with a Balanced Budget Amendment that would put a straitjacket on Washington’s ability to spend money we don’t have. The only reason this Administration doesn’t want a constitutional amendment is because they want to keep spending the American people’s money. Senate Republicans will force a vote on this amendment – the question is how many Democrats will join us in making sure we never see a debt crisis like this again.”

NOTE: Today, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "This is not a constitutional issue,” and that it "is not good for the economy; it doesn't answer the problem, and we need to act because we are capable to doing the work that the American people sent us here to do.”

---

Tags: Orrin Hatch, Senator, UT, Utah, White hosue, BBA, Balnced Budget Amendment To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Radical Progressive Leadership Is Saying "Srew the Jobs, We Want More Taxes"

Today in Washington, D.C. - July 8, 2011:
The Senate was not in session today and will reconvene on Monday at 2 PM. It will resume post-cloture consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1323, a nonbinding Sense of the Senate resolution offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). S.1323 says people making over $1 million per year should be required to “sacrifice” in resolving the budget deficit.  Don't you just love the euphemism "sacrifice" - which means: how much more can we take and waste on useless liberal programs that are bankrupting our country. Thanks, Nevada for returning witless Reid to Congress.

At 5:30 PM on Monday the Senate will vote on adoption of the motion to proceed to S. 1323. Let's move on to confiscation of more wealth. While previously rumored, it is indeed becoming a concept that is being promoted by the liberals that "shared sacrifice" for the elderly will be there very lives first via denied medical treatment then social euthanasia (the pill).

Today, the Department of Labor released its monthly employment report, which can be summarized in two words: "June Gloom." June saw an even lower net increase in job creation than the disappointing tally in May. This jobs report continues a two month run of more indications that the economy is struggling to gain forward momentum. Economists are right to observe this morning that the recovery has stalled.

By the Numbers: the June Jobs Report:

• There were a scant 18,000 net new jobs created last month.  The Department of Labor also revised its April and May jobs report today, finding that 44,000 fewer jobs were created than originally reported, or 2.5 times as many net jobs as the Department reported were created on net in June.
• The number of unemployed Americans edged up by 173,000 to 14.1 million in June.  In the two years after the “stimulus” spending bill was enacted, more than 1.5 million jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate has averaged 9.5 percent – despite promises by the White House that the “stimulus” would keep unemployment below eight percent.  Despite displays of shovel-ready construction jobs, unemployment among construction workers reached 15.4 percent last month, down from 18.2 percent during last year’s “recovery summer” tour by the administration.
• The continued stall of job creation in June further depressed average monthly job creation this year to 126,000 – an amount far short of the more than 300,000 jobs per month needed over a sustained period of time to meaningfully drive down unemployment. While the national picture is bleak enough, there are currently 11 states with unemployment topping 10 percent.
• The average duration of unemployment continued to increase in June to a record 39.9 weeks, up 15 percent from one year ago. The number of unemployed less than five weeks surged by 412,000, while those unemployed longer than 27 weeks comprised 44 percent of the total. The number of people who did not actively seek work because they did not believe any work was available increased by 160,000 people in June compared to May.

Reuters reports today, “The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves, from 9.1 percent in May. ‘The message on the economy is ongoing stagnation,’ said Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision economics in New York. ‘Income growth is marginal so there's no indication of momentum.’ . . . The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported. The report shattered expectations the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first half of the year.”

It’s clear from this disappointing report that now is certainly not the time for tax hikes that would certainly hurt the economy, nor for more failed stimulus spending that would only make the debt crisis worse.

The two national crises were identified: "14 million unemployed and more than $14 trillion in debt. Chronic unemployment, and record deficits and debt. What are the Democrats proposing? Higher taxes and more spending. In the middle of a jobs crisis, they want to slam already struggling businesses with a massive tax hike. In the middle of a debt crisis, they want to borrow and spend more money as a solution to the problem.”

On Wednesday, Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl explained why tax hikes are a bad idea: “There's a sense that Republicans need to do something to make the president happy here in order to reach an agreement. And that making the president happy is to agree to some kind of a tax hike. Let's get back to what the fundamental question is. What is good for the economy? What will put Americans back to work again? What's the right medicine? What's the wrong medicine? We're in a bad economic downturn. We know that. We've got high unemployment. We know that. Jobs are not being created in the country. What's the right medicine? Is it to add more taxes onto the people who create jobs? The answer is no.”

And Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) added, “It seems so obvious that if you want more of something, in this case jobs, that you make it easier, not harder and raising taxes, as you've heard, is something we believe will make it harder on job creators to create jobs to deal with the number one issue in America.”

As Leader McConnell said earlier this week, “Just this last December the President acknowledged that preventing a tax hike meant more resources were available for job creators to add employees. Does the President now think the economy is doing so well, that unemployment is so low and economic growth so rapid that we can take billions of dollars away from these very same job creators? It's equally ludicrous to propose more stimulus spending as part of a deficit reduction package. Republicans and, yes, some Democrats oppose those ideas because they won’t solve the debt crisis and they won’t create jobs. Americans expect that in a negotiation about a debt crisis that we actually do something to significantly reduce the debt. And with so many still out of work, we expect the President to not insist on proposals that his own administration says will put even more on the unemployment line.”

A new survey by Rasmussen Reports "finds that 72% of Likely U.S. Voters believe a free market economy is better than an economy managed by the government." Big Government is not the solution - it is the problem. It is obvious to almost three quarter of the public that trust does not rest in the government but in Free Markets. Who are the others: liberal progressives, some socialists, and maybe the mentally challenged? Only 14% think a government-managed economy is better. Another 14% are not sure. Are we to follow the 14% who think a government-managed economy is better? The people who goose-step or kiss-up to people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barny Frank, Barack Obama and a handful of others.

Rasmussen adds, "Among Democrats, 48% say a free market is better; 29% think a government-managed economy is the answer; 23% are not sure." Again, even among democrats, those who are willing to "jump of the cliff" for their deranged leadership are minimal. So there is hope for America.

Note that, "75% of those who work for a private company give the nod to a free market economy, compared to 53% of government employees." Government workers are indeed afraid of loosing their jobs in an overgrown bloated bureaucracy. And in many cases, we should ask: If a government job is not needed, is it a "real job" or a payback position supported by a corrupt system.

It is very obvious, that the present "Radical Progressive Leadership Is Saying "Screw the Jobs, We Want More Taxes"

---

Tags: Jobs, No Jobs, liberal agenda, More taxes, DOL, Department of Labor, Rasmussen Report, survey, progressives, Obama administration, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Kleptocracy - Ruled by Thieves

A.F. Branco:

Definition: Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, from Ancient Greek: κλέπτης (thief) and κράτος (rule), is a term applied to a government subject to control fraud that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats), via the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service. The term means "rule by thieves". A Kleptocracy is rather a pejorative for a government perceived to have a particularly severe and systemic problem with the selfish misappropriation of public funds by those in power. - Wikipedia

---

Tags: A.F. Branco, Comically Incorrect, political cartoon, rule by thieves, misappropriation of public funds, Kleptocracy, Democrats To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Big Labor Is In The Bag for Obama

by William Warren: Big Labor is already filing behind Obama’s 2012 campaign before there is even a nominee from the other party, which really shows how biased the leadership of the unions are.

---

Tags: Big Labor, Unions, National Education Association, NEA, Obama, Barack Obama, 2012 Campaign, Political Cartoons, William Warren To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

When Do We Get A U.S. Attorney General We Can Trust?

Today in Washington, D.C. - July 7, 2011:
The Senate reconvened and voted 74-22 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1323, a nonbinding Sense of the Senate resolution offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). S.1323 says people making over $1 million per year should be required to “sacrifice” in resolving the budget deficit.

No more votes are scheduled for this week. The remainder of the week and Monday afternoon will be spent on consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1323. On Monday at 5:30 PM the Senate will vote on adoption of the motion to proceed to S. 1323.

In the House, a bipartisan group of House members led by Congressman Tim Griffin (AR-02) sent a letter to the new U.S. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, urging him to ensure the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to make reforms to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. Griffin’s letter to Secretary Panetta is just part of his effort to ensure accountability within DoD. In May, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which included a provision by Griffin that would establish benchmarks to ensure the DOD meets their statutory requirement to produce auditable financial statements by 2017.

Mexican Trucks Can Roll Trough The USA: GOPUSA/ AP reports that yesterday, "U.S. and Mexican officials signed an agreement Wednesday allowing each country's trucks to traverse the other's highways, implementing a key provision of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement . . . Transportation secretaries Ray LaHood and Dionisio Perez-Jacome signed the three-year memorandum, which is based on an agreement announced in March by Presidents Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon. NAFTA, signed in 1994, had called for Mexican trucks to have unrestricted access to highways in border states by 1995 and full access to all U.S. highways by January 2000. Canadian trucks have no limits on where they can go. But until now, Mexican trucks have seldom been allowed farther than a buffer zone on the U.S. side of the border. In retaliation, Mexico had imposed higher tariffs on dozens of U.S. products. The Mexican government has now agreed to suspend those tariffs as long as the agreement is in place."

Impeach is an Option.
The Other is Jail!

Focus On Attorney General Eric Holder: Despite the triumph of finally getting Osama bin Laden, recent news in the war on terror indicates that the Obama administration is once again back to insisting that foreign terrorists be tried in civilian courts.

Politico reported yesterday, “In a move that has angered some congressional Republicans, a Somali man accused of having ties to two terrorist groups — who was secretly interrogated for months aboard a U.S. Navy ship — will be prosecuted in civilian court in New York by the Justice Department, the Obama administration said. The indictment, unsealed in the Southern District of New York, charged Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame with nine counts related to supporting Al Qaeda in Yemen and the Shabab in Somalia terror groups — but the White House didn’t reveal his capture until after he had already been brought onto American soil.”

As ABC News noted, this isn’t sitting well with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY., blasted the Obama administration this morning for the decision to bring Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, the Somali man facing terrorism charges to New York for trial, saying the administration’s ‘ideological rigidity’ is ‘harming the national security’ of the country. ‘Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame is a foreign enemy combatant,’ McConnell said on the Senate floor this morning, ‘He should be treated as one; he should be sitting in a cell Guantanamo Bay, and eventually be tried before a military commission. Warsame is an admitted terrorist.’ . . . ‘It’s astonishing that this Administration is determined to give foreign fighters all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens regardless of where they are captured.’ . . .”

According to Fox News, “Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the transfer ‘directly contradicts congressional intent and the will of the American people.’ ‘Congress has spoken clearly multiple times – including explicitly in pending legislation – of the perils of bringing terrorists onto U.S. soil,’ he said. . . . ‘A foreign national who fought on behalf of al Shabaab in Somali -- and who was captured by our military overseas -- should be tried in a military commission, not a federal civilian court in New York or anywhere else in our country,’ said Sen. Susan Collins, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.”

Meanwhile, the Eric Holder and the Justice Department are moving ahead with civilian trials in Kentucky for two Iraqi terror suspects, even though they are not U.S. citizens. The Bowling Green Daily News reported, “McConnell, the Senate minority leader, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asking Holder to reconsider his decision to hold civilian trials for Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, both arrested on terrorism charges in Bowling Green in May.”

In the letter, Leader McConnell wrote, “As you know, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi are not United States citizens or legal permanent residents of this country.  They are foreign nationals who apparently entered this country illegally after having fought our troops in Iraq. In addition, as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky has noted, none of their actions—both those from the past and those they planned for the future—relate to targeting our civilian population in this country.  In Iraq, Alwan conducted IED attacks against our troops for several years . . . . Hammadi also engaged in IED attacks in Iraq and was part of a group of insurgent fighters that possessed eleven surface-to-air missiles. . . . [O]ur priority with enemy combatants like these should be to capture, interrogate, and detain them—indefinitely, if need be.  If, after these priorities are achieved, we determine they should be tried for violating the laws of war, we should use our military commission system to do so. Our civilian criminal justice system simply is not intended for these purposes.”

As McConnell said yesterday, “[I]t has become abundantly clear that the Administration has no intention of utilizing Guantanamo unless an enemy combatant is already being held there. Instead, the Administration has purposefully imported a terrorist into the U.S. and is providing him all the rights of U.S. citizens in court. This ideological rigidity being displayed by the Administration is harming the national security of the United States of America. Alwan, Hammadi, Warsame, and all future foreign enemy combatants belong in Guantanamo. They do not deserve the same rights and privileges as Americans. The administration’s actions are inexplicable, create unnecessary risks here at home, and do nothing to increase the security of the United States.”

As outlined by others, the Obama Administration and especially Eric Holder are showing extreme arrogance and defiance of the American people and in fact willing to endanger the American public.  Holder has yet to answer to the American public, why foreign terrorists like Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi are entitled to all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizen? And consider this, "who are the peers under common law who can sit as jurors in judgement of these cases? What is the reasoning an factors and the intents of President Barack Obama and AG Eric Holder that are and have led to their bringing terrorists onto American soil and trying them under American civil law verses military law. This action will lead to higher risks, higher costs (multi-millions of dollars) to Americans and in fact, may have results even more harmful to American citizens in the future.

Shame all US Senators who willingly voted to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General based on the premise that the president should have whoever he wishes verses what is best for the protection of the American people. A new low is now being set in American justice - lower even than when Attorney General John Mitchell was convicted.

Holder has both abused his authority and has placed American lives at risk or worse (they died). Is that part of his sworn Constitutional Authority? Be it enforcement of laws regarding illegals, to sanctioning gun running to Cartels in Mexico, to transport of terrorists from overseas for trial within the U.S., trying foreign terrorists in the US verses at Gitmo under established tribunals, to failing to prosecute Black Panthers for intimidating voters with violence, his actions as Attorney General have not been in the best interest of the American people. But of greatest concern is that AG Eric Holder is presently and has endangered America. When Do We Get A U.S. Attorney General We Can Trust?

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, Mexican Trucks, Eric Holder, terrorists, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Quote of the Day - Beggar Nation

"We can't spend more than we have. ... This is no longer a matter of right versus left, liberal versus conservative, we can prove our conclusion on this by basic mathematics. The United States Federal Government from all sources, for all purposes, takes in $2.2 trillion a year. Keep that number in mind. $2.2 trillion a year. We have total unfunded liabilities of $65 trillion, $2.2 trillion in revenue, $65 trillion in total unfunded liabilities. That is more than 30 to 1 leverage. If the United States Federal Government were a bank regulated by itself, they would shut themselves down. We live in a nation where not long ago our United States Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] was on rhetorical bended knee in communist China pleading with the Chinese to continue to buy our debt, because if they don’t buy our debt and other foreign sovereign wealth funds don’t buy our debt our beloved United States of America can’t pay its bills. The United States of America my friends is not a beggar nation." ~ Gov. Tim Pawlenty

---

H/T: Thurber's Thoughts

---

Tags: Tim Pawlenty, United States, beggar nation, not a beggar nation, presidential candidate, quote To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Years of High Unemployment Ahead at Recovery’s Pace

If things continue at the current pace, the high unemployment problem will be around indefinitely.

by James Sherk, The Heritage Foundation: Despite the official end of the recession in June 2009, the labor market remains stagnant. Employment has fallen by nearly 7 million jobs since the recession began. Unemployment remains above 9 percent. This is the weakest recovery of the post–World War II era. Current policies have not stimulated business hiring. If job creation occurs at the same rate as in the 2003–2007 expansion, unemployment will not return to pre-recession levels until 2018. If job creation continues at the low rate of the past year, unemployment will remain permanently high. Congress needs to act to prevent this by removing federal barriers to business investment and success.

Deep Recession, Weak Recovery The collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting financial crisis plunged the U.S. economy into a deep recession in 2008. Unemployment rose above 10 percent, and employers shed more than 8 million net jobs.

The recession officially ended in June 2009, but payroll employment remains 6.9 million jobs below its December 2007 peak. The average unemployed worker has been without work for 39.7 weeks (nine months)—the longest since the government began keeping track in 1948.[1]


This is the weakest recovery of the post–World War II era. In past recessions, employment fully recovered within two to three years. As of May 2011—three and a half years after the recession’s onset—payroll employment remains 5 percent below pre-recession levels. Unemployment stands at 9.1 percent.

How Long Until Unemployment Falls? Some unemployment will always exist in the economy. Even in good economic conditions it takes time for workers to move between expanding and contracting businesses. Economists estimate that the “natural rate of unemployment” in the U.S. economy is 5.2 percent.[2]

The Heritage Foundation used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics[3] to calculate how long, given certain levels of job creation, it would take unemployment to return to its natural rate.[4] These estimates are not a prediction of how quickly unemployment will fall; instead, they illustrate what different rates of monthly job creation imply about the speed of the labor market recovery.

Even with strong economic growth, it will take time for unemployment to return to normal levels. If employers add an average of 260,000 net jobs per month—the rate the payroll survey showed during the late 1990s tech bubble[5]—then unemployment will not return to its natural rate until August 2014.

If employers add 216,000 net new jobs per month—the rate the household survey showed in 1997, the year of the greatest job growth in the tech bubble[6]—unemployment will return to its natural rate in October 2015.

Slow Recovery Likely These are optimistic assumptions. The late 1990s was a period of unusually strong economic growth. During the 2003–2007 expansion, employers added an average of 176,000 jobs per month.[7] If the recovery takes that more recent pace, unemployment will not return to normal rates until January 2018. Matching the rate of job growth in the recovery from the last recession would mean Americans would wait seven years for unemployment to recover.[8]


The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that the recovery will occur at roughly the same pace as the 2003–2007 expansion.[9] The CBO’s latest economic forecasts show the economy returning to full employment in 2017. In other words, the CBO expects employers to soon begin hiring at a slightly faster rate than during the best years of the last decade. Even at that pace, unemployment would not return to normal levels until after the 2016 presidential election.

Unfortunately, the recovery has not proceeded even at this pace thus far. Following anemic job growth in 2010, the first quarter of 2011 showed strong employment gains. This raised hopes that the economy had finally begun a strong recovery. The most recent data suggests these hopes were illusory—hiring stalled and unemployment rose in April and May. The labor market appears stuck in neutral.

If that is the case, Americans will wait a long time for unemployment to fall. Modest job growth does not necessarily mean lower unemployment. The economy needs to add between 100,000 and 125,000 jobs per month to keep pace with population growth.[10] Unemployment will rise if employers consistently create fewer jobs than this

Over the past year, employment has grown by an average of just 122,000 jobs per month.[11] If job growth continues at this rate, then the unemployment rate in January 2021 would stand at 7.4 percent. At the current rate of recovery, high unemployment will become the new normal.

Improve the Business Climate Congress and the Administration should take immediate action to encourage job creation. Successfully doing so requires understanding why employers create jobs. Businesses and entrepreneurs hire workers to take advantage of opportunities to create goods and services consumers value—at a profit. Many government interventions in the economy reduce those opportunities. Small businesses currently identify taxes and government regulations as their most important problems.[12]

Congress and the Administration can encourage lasting job creation by creating a better business climate. Removing barriers to business success and reducing unnecessary costs encourages businesses to hire. Such measures include:

• Repealing Obamacare and its associated employer mandates and tax increases;
• Preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide;
• Passing tort reform to reduce the cost of meritless lawsuits;
• Expanding trade agreements;
• Permitting more domestic energy production; and
• Reducing spending to mitigate the specter of enormous tax increases.

Congress can significantly intervene in the economy and erect barriers to business success—or Congress can remove artificial barriers to entrepreneurship and encourage risk-taking and innovation. Americans do not have to settle for 9 percent unemployment. Lasting economic stagnation is a policy choice.
James Sherk is Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

---

[1] Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “The Employment Situation,” December 2007 to May 2011, data collected by Haver Analytics.

[2] Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021,” p. XII (June 28, 2011).

[3] The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts two monthly surveys of the labor market: the household survey and the establishment survey. The household survey is a monthly survey of individuals that includes questions about whether they are working or unemployed, and is the source for information on the unemployment and labor force participation rates. The establishment survey asks businesses how many employees they have on payroll and is the source for the monthly job creation figures reported in the press. The establishment survey has a considerably lower monthly margin of error in estimating total employment than the household survey, but it omits some categories of workers included in the household survey, such as agricultural employees and the self-employed. Over time, they typically report similar—but not identical—results. In the tech boom of the late 1990s, the payroll survey showed greater job creation than that of the household survey. In order to avoid combining the results of two distinct surveys, figures from the household survey were used to calculate future unemployment rates.

[4] The employment, unemployment, labor force, and population sizes reported in the May 2011 household survey were taken as the starting point for the economy. The (16 and over) population was inflated at a 1.0 percent annual rate to account for population growth, as projected by the Census Bureau. Total employment in June 2011 and subsequent months was estimated by adding to the previous month’s employment the assumed level of monthly job growth. The size of the labor force was estimated by multiplying the labor force participation (LFP) rate by the population projections. Unemployment was calculated as the difference between the size of the labor force and total employment. The unemployment rate was the ratio of the estimated unemployment level to the estimated labor force. LFP rates were derived from the CBO’s March 2011 LFP projections. Current LFP rates are below the CBO projections of the LFP rate for 2011. Consequently, the simulations held LFP at 64.2 percent between June 2011 and May 2012 and then decreased by 0.1 points per year until it reached the CBO’s estimated rate of 63.9 percent in 2015. Thereafter, the CBO’s projected LFP rates were used.

[5] This is the average monthly job creation for the payroll survey between 1997 and 1999. These figures are for illustration only. The household survey and payroll survey measure jobs differently. While they show similar trends over time, they measure different universes of employees and are not strictly comparable. All other monthly job creation estimates used the household survey results.

[6] The household survey showed average monthly payroll growth of 216,450 jobs in 1997. This figure omits estimated December to January employment changes, which are skewed by updates made to the population estimates.

[7] Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Household Survey/Haver Analytics, August 2003 to November 2007. Figures omit December to January employment changes because of the updates to the population controls.

[8] This is close to the rate the establishment survey shows for the first quarter of 2011 (+165,000 jobs per month).

[9] Congressional Budget Office, “CBO’s 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook,” June 2011, p. 25. (June 28, 2011).

[10] The Census Bureau projects that the population 16 and over will grow by 1.0 percent per year over the next decade—roughly 190,000 people per month. A 64 percent labor force participation rate implies a monthly expansion of the labor force of 120,000 workers. To keep unemployment from rising above 9 percent, 110,000 of those workers need to find jobs.

[11] Heritage Foundation calculations using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Household Survey/Haver Analytics.

[12] 36 percent of small business owners identify taxes or government regulations as their single largest problem, while 25 percent identify poor sales. William Dunkelberg and Holly Wade, “NFIB Small Business Economic Trends Survey,” National Federation of Independent Business, May 2011, p. 18, (June 28, 2011).

---

Tags: U.S., recession, recovery, unemployment, labor market, employment, labor, jobs, recession, investment, financial crisis, Heritage Foundation To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

The Emerging New Monetarism: Gold Convertibility To Save The Euro

Image Via @daylife

by Ralph Benko, Contributing Author: Professor Robert Mundell urges gold convertibility for the euro, the currency which he fathered, as well as for the dollar. This is a major step forward. Thought leaders are abandoning “old monetarism,” which was vainly fixated on quantity. Even its chief proponent, Milton Friedman, acknowledged old monetarism as unsuccessful in a 2003 interview with the Financial Times. An emerging “new monetarism” is quickly taking its place — one that focuses on the quality, not quantity, of money.

Empirical data suggest that the gold dollar represents the epitome of quality. As Forbes’ own Steve Forbes advised the presidential candidates last week, the “debate should be focused on what the best gold system is, not on whether we need to go back on one.”

Mundell recently endorsed the gold standard on Pimm Fox’s Bloomberg Television “Taking Stock.”

Pimm Fox: You’ve written about the role of gold in the world economy, Professor Mundell. Do you think that we’re going to see any kind of return to the gold standard?

Mundell: [T]here could be a kind of Bretton Woods type of gold standard where the price of gold was fixed for central banks and they could use gold as an asset to trade central banks.

The great advantage of that was that gold is nobody’s liability and it can’t be printed. So it has a strength and confidence that people trust. So If you had not just the United States but the United States and the euro tied together to each other and to gold, gold might be the intermediary and then with the other important currencies like the yen and Chinese yuan and British pound all tied together as a kind of new SDR that could be one way the world could move forward on a better monetary system.

Mundell is the world’s most distinguished living economist. He is a Nobel Economics Laureate. He was the primary source of the original supply-side manifesto, “The Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis,” which led to the low-tax-rate, strong-dollar policy at the heart of Reaganomics. He has acted as a privy counselor to the Chinese government (which in appreciation has named a university for him). Mundell’s guidance, of course, is one of the reasons why mainland China has had 30+ years of uninterrupted double-digit economic growth. Mundell’s work also laid the foundation for the common European currency, the euro.

Although Mundell is less of a pop culture celebrity than Paul Krugman, another Nobel winner, the impact of Mundell’s life work is epochal, while Krugman caps his career as a New York Times blogger. I have argued elsewhere that Mundell’s work has helped create something like $100 trillion of new wealth. The world’s GDP in 1980 was around $11 trillion, reports the World Bank. Today it is around $60 trillion. Mundell had much to do with this.

The added $50 trillion-per-year capitalizes to over $100 trillion in new wealth — even when adjusted for inflation. Lower tax rates, free trade and more stable currencies moved something like 2 billion people out of dollar-a-day penury into prosperity. That achievement arguably makes Mundell the greatest living humanitarian. In becoming the first Nobel-class economist to advocate the gold standard it suggests that his greatest contribution to human flourishing may lie ahead.

Let us now take the next step from the 20th century’s “Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis” to a 21st century “Mundell-Tamny Hypothesis.” Tamny, editor of Forbes‘ Opinions page, proposed in his June 12 column that we:

… define the euro in terms of gold, and make euros redeemable in the yellow metal. If so, the euro’s staying power and eventual rise to preeminence among currencies would almost be assured. Strong money that is stable in value is much demanded as a ticket used to exchange real wealth, and if the euro had a stable definition, it would quickly trump the dollar.

Of course the mythmakers predicting the euro’s demise would argue that a gold-defined euro would lead to certain debt default by Greece and Ireland (to name but two struggling countries), and that both would quickly exit the euro under such a scenario. The thinking here is wildly incorrect. ….

[T]he governments of Greece and Ireland are having trouble with their debts to some degree because economic growth has withered alongside tax receipts. If so, far from a weight on growth, a strong, stable euro would attract the investment that would drive company formation and job creation that would bolster the ability of both governments to remain current on interest payments. For good or bad, economic growth is always the best fix for governments in arrears to creditors.

Many economists are already considering restoring the classical gold standard. From the rising economies known as the BRICS, S.S. Tarapore, former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India, has publicly articulated the virtues of the gold standard. Zhou Qiren, dean of Peking University’s National School of Development and a member of the People’s Bank of China Monetary Policy Committee recently, while not minimizing the political challenges of doing so, told a reporter Ye Weiqiang:

If the currency of each major country is bound to gold, financial headaches would of course be reduced. Taking QE2 as an example, if this were the 1880s, the currencies of the major western countries would be measured in gold. Unless the U.S.Treasury suddenly gained a large quantity of gold reserves, it would be impossible for (U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben) Bernanke to print US$ 600 billion to purchase long-term debt. If there is a commitment to a gold standard system, such as the Bretton Woods system in place until 1971, the Fed could not easily ease its monetary policy, because not only could each country with dollar holdings hold them accountable, they could also redeem their dollars for gold to see how much Uncle Sam’s promise is worth.

A gold standard also would eliminate exchange rate wars. Since all major currencies could be exchanged for gold or other currencies pegged to a currency that follows the gold standard, exchange rates would remain stable without anyone doing anything. Where would exchange rate disputes come from? In short, the gold standard would effectively prevent each country’s government from recklessly levying ‘inflation taxes’ domestically and passing troubles to others by manipulating currency exchange internationally.

Of course, this is an excellent monetary system.

This, of course, is but the tip of an iceberg with commentators such as Larry Kudlow pushing gold as the “crown” of an economic growth strategy, with the gold standard’s eminence grise, Lewis E. Lehrman, with whose eponymous institute this writer is professionally associated, emerging as a leading presence in the economic discourse, with American Principles in Action, with which this writer is professionally associated, teaming up with the Iowa Tea Party to raise public, and the presidential candidates’, awareness of the gold standard. And far more.

Keynes wrote, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money:

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

It is time, and long past time, for the practical men of our era — such as our president and the Republican presidential aspirants — to throw off the shackles of various defunct economists, cease to distill frenzy from some academic scribblers, embrace the Mundell-Tamny hypothesis, and move forward, immediately, to multilateral convertibility of currencies to gold.

The gold standard is the key to human flourishing. If we grasp the opportunity of gold convertibility this still-dawning millennium beckons with the possibility of becoming a new golden age.
------------
Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, a lead participant in the Iowa Tea Party’s upcoming Bus Tour. He co-led the gold standard breakout session at the Tea Party Patriots’ American Summit and is the editor of the Lehrman Institute’s The Gold Standard Now This article which first appeared in Forbes was submitted to the ARRA News Service editor for reprint by contributing author Ralph Benko.

---

Tags: Ralph Benko, Gold Standard, emerging new monetarism, gold, convertibility, Euro To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Coleman: Its Time Has Come - The Parental Rights Amendment

Protecting Children by Empowering Parents
Arkansas Administrators: “The state needs to take ownership of its children…”
Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: On the last day of the most recent session of Arkansas’s Legislature, the House Education Committee considered and defeated SB774, commonly known as “the Tim Tebow bill” which, if adopted, would have allowed home-schooled students to participate in public school interscholastic activities.

The bill was opposed by the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators represented by the group’s Executive Director, Dr. Richard Abernathy, who spoke against the bill.  Dr. Abernathy’s comments should send chills down the spine of any parent, regardless if they have their children in public or private schools or their children are home-schooled.

Dr. Abernathy explained that public school administrators view home schools as a “legalized method of dropping out of school.”  “We have created by law a legalized method whereby parents can pull their kids out of school,” Abernathy said.  “At some point the state needs to take ownership of its children we are allowing to drop out of school.”

Abernathy brushed aside the thousands of home-schooled children in Arkansas who are performing often above their public-schooled peers and focused all of his opposition on those significantly fewer instances where parents get angry with school administrators and, in frustration, pull their children out of school, abusing home school laws in the process. (View all of Abernathy’s testimony - Look for the video for the House Education Committee on 4-1-2011.) It should be noted that Dr. Abernathy’s opposition affected primarily if not only those excellent home-schooled students he brushed aside.

This article is not intended to disparage Arkansas’s public schools. I have good friends who are public school teachers and administrators and members of my family who have taught or do teach in Arkansas public schools. They, and many others like them, have a genuine concern and love for those they teach. And I’ve talked with enough administrators and school board members to know that many of them often feel as if they are little more than regulatory compliancy officers. Probably nowhere in current American culture do we more desperately need to get the federal government off of our backs and out of our personal lives than in our public schools.

With public schools in America now experimenting with “gender education” and the United Nations advocating and publishing public school guidelines for “Sexuality Education,” the view expressed by Dr. Abernathy brings the issue too close to home to overlook any longer.

The time has come for the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children has been recognized and upheld for centuries. But there are dark clouds on the horizon.

According to ParentalRights.org, “Today parental rights are coming under assault from federal judges who deny or refuse to recognize these rights. Adding further danger to the child-parent relationship, international law seeking to undermine the parental role is advancing on the horizon. Together, these threats are converging to create a ‘perfect storm’ that looms over the child-parent relationship.

“In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter’s participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter’s life by grounding her.

“But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent’s actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was ‘conflict between parent and child.’ Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

“Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila’s parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.

DANGEROUS PRECEDENT -  “Parental rights are under attack in our nation, with the first threat originating from within the federal court system. As this story illustrates, a growing disregard for parental rights has been spreading within the courts of our nation.

“Across the country, many judges are beginning to deny the vital role of parents in the lives of their children, instead inserting the government into a parental’ role in a child’s life. This dangerous assertion is leading to the severance of the child-parent relationship in numerous instances across the nation—removals that cause unnecessary pain to both children and their parents.

“A thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge’s requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.

HANGING BY A THREAD - “Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that parental rights are among the ‘inalienable rights’ of Americans enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but they are finding it increasingly difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution.

“In Troxel v. Granville, the last major parental rights case heard by the Supreme Court, Scalia himself voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right. And other federal court judges are following in his footsteps, citing a mounting belief that no right can be protected by the federal courts unless explicitly stated in the Constitution.

“The dwindling support for parental rights found on the federal level has opened the door to a growing, blatant disregard of parental rights within the lower courts of our nation. Parental rights violations are on the increase across the country, as courts exchange parental involvement for government control in the lives of America’s children.

“The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is hanging by a thread.

“A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as ‘psychological co-parents,’ the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonalds. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

“When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

“In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were ‘deeply troubled’ by the utter disregard’ for the mother’s rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the ‘paramount right in the world.’

“Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question.’Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?’ he asked.

THE THREAT FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW -  “The precarious state of parental rights within our nation is reason enough for serious concern. With cases like these filling the courts, every parent should be concerned about the protection and preservation of their rights.

“But another storm is rapidly forming on the horizon.

“International law that seeks to empower the government to intrude upon the child-parent relationship is becoming an increasing threat. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a seemingly harmless treaty with dangerous implications for American families, is approaching possible ratification by the United States.
“If this treaty is made binding upon our country, the government would have the power to intervene in any child’s life to advance its definition of ‘the best interests of the child.’ The scenarios that could occur—and are occurring—as a result of this dangerous notion are both manifold and frightening.

“Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in ‘the best interest of the child.’

“In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.

A SHELTER IN THE STORM - “There is only one solution to this approaching storm: a constitutional amendment that places current Supreme Court doctrine protecting parental rights into the explicit language of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment will shelter the child-parent relationship from the coming storm, ensuring that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

“No government, regardless of how well-intentioned it might be, can replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child. Parents care, not because their children are “wards” for whom they are responsible. Parents are willing to brave danger and sacrifice, hardship and heartache to ensure the best for their kids.

Learn more about protecting parental rights through a constitutional amendment and join the campaign now and see which senators have signed on to sponsor this amendment in the U. S. Senate.
---------------
Curtis Coleman is the President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy and contributing author to the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, Parental Rights Amendment, parentalrights.org, public schools, Richard Abernathy, SB774, Tim Tebow bill, UNCRC, American Culture, Arkansas, Constitution, Education, Religious Freedom, States Rights, Curtis Coleman, The New South Conservative To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!