“Dick Rowland Image”

”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

– Going to College Endowments: How Colleges Violate Donor Intent

By Martin Morse

Wooster Foundation Watch, Capital Research Center

Donors should be especially wary when giving to universities. Don’t assume that college administrators will use your donations for the purposes you intend. Capital Research Center Visiting Fellow Martin Wooster offers these tips for making gifts to academia: make your wishes as explicit as possible and consider putting term-limits on your gifts to prevent misuse after you pass away.

Contact: Capital Research Center, 1513 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036, 202/483-6900, fax 202/483-6902, email crc@capitalresearch.org, http://www.capitalresearch.org.

– Consumers and Markets Suffer When Lawyers Regulate Insurance

By Peter Bisbecos, Victoria E. Fimea, David F. Snyder and Kenneth A. Stoller

Legal Backgrounder, Washington Legal Foundation

The class action litigation procedures are designed to serve a socially beneficial purpose, in situations where meaningful legal recourse is not otherwise available. Contrary to this principle, certification of plaintiff classes is increasingly being sought with respect to the business practices of insurers. These lawsuits seek to undermine the ability of state insurance commissioners to follow a balanced and effective regulatory regime. As a result, both consumers and markets are harmed, and the solvency of insurers may even be threatened by exorbitant class action verdicts in so-called “bet the company” cases. This paper considers cases in Illinois, New Mexico, Ohio and Washington where litigants have attempted to use the class action procedures to circumvent the authority of insurance commissioners. The authors suggest that regulating insurance is best left to state insurance commissioners, not juries or litigators and conclude that all administrative remedies must be exhausted before actions may be brought.

CONTACT:Washington Legal Foundation, 2209 Massachusetts Ave., NW,Washington, DC 20036, 202/588-0302, fax 202/588-0386, email root@wlf.org, http://www.wlf.org.

– Economic and Political Thought

Biases of the Intellectual Classes

By Steven Yates

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Intellectual honesty means, at the very least, acknowledging the facts that are before one’s eyes: facts about the superiority of a civilization built around the concepts of individual freedom and responsibility, free enterprise, private property rights, and so on, to one built around central planning schemes that have yet to deliver anything except poverty, slavery and misery. When intellectuals teach the children of nonintellectuals to hate their own civilization and regard its achievements as acts of villainy, they only invite waves of understandable anti-intellectual reaction. CONTACT: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 518 West Magnolia Ave., Auburn, AL 36832, 334/321-2100, fax 334.321.2119, mail@mises.org, http://www.mises.org.

Above articles are quoted from The Heritage Foundation, The Insider November/December 2002, www.heritage.org.

”Roots (Food for Thought)”

– The President’s FY2004 Budget in Perspective

It is important to put the current budget proposal into historical context. To do so, it is necessary to translate current spending and revenue proposals into real terms either by adjusting for inflation or by expressing the proposal in terms of the broader economy. Looking merely at the budget in nominal terms that do not account for inflation or economic growth is misleading and inaccurate. The table below contains information about the current budget in the context of the post-World War II era and the past three administrations. Highlights include:

The President’s budget proposes spending $390.4 billion on defense related activities in FY 2004. This amounts to 17.5 percent of all spending and 3.5 percent of GDP. -This level is roughly the same as defense spending was in 1996, which amounted to 17.0 percent of all federal spending and 3.5 percent of GDP.

-Defense spending in 1987, the height of the Reagan build up, was 28.1 percent of all federal spending and 6.1 percent of GDP.

The President’s budget proposes a fiscal year 2004 budget deficit of $307.4 billion, which is 13.8 percent of all spending and 2.8 percent of GDP. -This level is roughly the same as the deficit was in 1994, which amounted to 13.9 percent of all spending and 2.9 percent of GDP.

-Deficit spending in 1983, the highest point during the Reagan administration, was 25.7 percent of all spending and 6.0 percent of GDP.

Comparison of Bush Budget (FY’04) with Past Budget Averages

FY’04 Proposal

Post-WWII Average (FY’46 – FY’02)

Clinton Budgets (FY’94 – FY’01)

G.H.W. Bush Budgets (FY’90 – FY’93)

Reagan Budgets (FY’82 – FY’89) Total Receipts as percent of GDP 17.0% 17.9% 19.4% 17.7% 18.0% Total outlays as percent of GDP 19.7% 19.5% 19.6% 22.0% 22.3% Deficit (-)/Surplus as percent of GDP -2.7% -1.6% -0.1% -4.3% -4.3% Annual growth in total receipts (average % change from previous fiscal year, FY96 $) 2.7% 2.9% 4.9% 0.5% 2.5% Annual growth in total outlays (average % change from previous fiscal year, FY96 $) 2.2% 2.3% 1.5% 1.9% 2.7% Defense spending as a percent of total outlays 17.5% 35.5% 17.1% 21.7% 26.7% Non-defense discretionary spending as a percent of total outlays 19.2% 19.4%* 17.6% 16.6% 17.1% Net interest costs as percent of total outlays 7.9% 10.5%* 13.9% 14.5% 13.2% Other mandatory spending as a percent of total outlays 55.4% 41.6%* 51.4% 46.2% 42.9% Debt held by public at end of fiscal year as percent of GDP 36.9% 44.0% 43.0% 46.3% 36.7% Gross Debt at end of fiscal year as percent of GDP 64.8% 56.2% 63.4% 61.8% 45.4%

* includes only data back to 1962 since the distinction between discretionary and mandatory began only in that year.

Above article is quoted from the Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org 2/4/2003

”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

“To laugh is to risk appearing the fool. To weep is to risk appearing sentimental. To reach out for another is to risk involvement. To express feelings is to risk exposing your true self. To place your ideas, your dreams before the crowd is to risk their loss. To love is to risk not being loved in return. To live is to risk dying. To hope is to risk despair.

But risk must be taken because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing. The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow. But he simply cannot learn, feel, change, grow, love and live. Chained by his certitudes, he is a slave, he has forfeited freedom. Only a person who risks is free!” — Author Unknown

”’See Web site”’ http://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”’for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”’

Comments

comments