In the WSJ editorial page (free link) today. And it ain’t so pretty.
The majority of Blunt’s piece touts the great economic success of a Republican majority in the House. So they got out of the way… some of the time… when they weren’t spending astronomical amounts. Kudos to you.
So what are his big reforms, tapping that wealth of conservative dissatisfaction? Identifying earmarks with the legislators who put them there, no “pay-go” (the system that demands that tax cuts are offset by tax increases), and annual budget reconciliation.
These reforms are improvements. But they’re the bare minimum for a very broken system. Blunt says nothing about curbing the soaring budgets or thousands of earmarks. Under Blunt’s plan, pork wouldn’t necessarily decrease, but we would better identify the porkers. And then the reference to “shadowy 527s”? Blunt’s a man of the party establishment, and regulating campaign spending is just another phrase for incumbency protection.
Contrast Blunt to John Shadegg’s piece yesterday. Shadegg acknowledges and confront’s the Republicans’ failures head-on. Shadegg would also add greater transparency to the earmark process: they would have to be attached to the regular appropriations bills instead of slipped in in the conference report. Shadegg seems to be the man of action and not lip service in this race.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?