March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
Over at Reason, Peter Suderman outlines some of the problems with Paul Ryan’s budget proposal but utlimately concludes that the plan is a valuable starting point to a conversation that should have begun long ago. I think that’s exactly the right attitude to take.
Ryan has given us a broad outline of how we can bring our spending commitments, particularly the big entitlement programs, into line with our historic tax burden without subjecting future generations to crippling debt. Supporters of that broad outline shouldn’t treat this budget as holy writ. The details will need to be continually reworked to make sure the cost containment is feasible and to address valid criticisms. With a Democratic president and Senate, this isn’t going to become law soon. A sustained debate with some flexibility toward the details will buy time to persuade the country that something along these lines is unavoidable if we don’t want to pay substantially higher taxes or go deeper into debt.
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.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?