Kevin, along with rethinking the Drug War, we might also agree on rethinking U.S. military strategy. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld seems to be leaning toward a smaller, nimbler, less-expensive force centered on a possible Asian crisis. W
By the way, Sean, we don't seem to agree on much, but I'm totally with you on the Ecstasy tip. I can't think of any sensible rationale for the increase in sentencing other than Drug War paranoia. In related drug war news, new Mexican President Vicente Fox has recently been thinking aloud about drug legalization. (Via Kill Your TV.) W
There's something you don't see every day. Apparently, the Senate is actually debating the merits of McCain-Feingold. W
Corporations shoot themselves in the foot when they bend over backwards to the environmental Left.
The Ford Motor Company gave $200,000 to the World Wildlife Fund between 1996 and 1997 and $149,621 to the World Resources Institute from 1996 to 1998. The World Wildlife Fund received $200,000 from the Ford Motor Company between 1996 and 1997. The World Wildlife Fund also received $20,000 from the DaimlerChrysler Corporation between 1996 and 1997. BP Amoco supported the World Resources Institute with $40,000 between 1996 and 1997, and the Progressive Policy Institute with $30,000 from 1996 to 1998.
Now, these groups are producing research to use to push for government regulations that will hurt their businesses. Sure, it's good PR to fund these groups, but the resulting regulations may cost much more. W
Ecstasy as bad as heroin? I don't think so. Sure, it screws up your serotonin levels, and it might be a gateway to harder drugs, but I've never heard of a raver going on some berserk rage while on X.
In a related story, Delaware police officer Steven Rust told a Senate committee that "Officers now look at things such as lollipops, spring water, pacifiers and light toys as drug paraphernalia." The Drug War is turning into an obsessive disorder. Am I a target for my new-found love of electronic dance music? W
Kevin went after President Bush's reversal of his "much-touted" campaign pledge last week. Now, Robert Novak has done some reporting behind the hoopla. According to Novak,
During the campaign, a line was slipped into a speech by Bush embracing the advanced eco-activist position that emissions of carbon dioxide should be regulated. There was absolutely no discussion inside the campaign, and no sense by anybody--including the news media--that a policy commitment had been reached.
It looks like this was just something fed to the media on a slow news day by Congressional Democrats. Novak concludes,
Bush's final decision generated front-page and nationally televised accounts depicting a reversal of policy that had been ignored when it was quietly announced five months earlier.
No big reversal as I see. Just one line tossed into a campaign speech that wasn't properly vetted. W
That's it! I've had it with California's twisted version of electricity deregulation. Will some politician there have the guts to allow the utilities to raise consumer rates so the public can better ration scare electricity? Prices will shoot up in the short run, but there will be fewer blackouts. In the long term, California must get over their irrational fear of power plants (especially nuclear) and put harmful state regulators on a leash. A growing economy needs energy, and nuclear is the one of the cleanest and safest sources around, even if you include the nuclear waste. W
Aw...poor guys. All the e-mails your Congressperson is getting is cutting into his or her valuable fundraising time. W
After eight years out of the loop, conservative groups are relishing renewed White House access. W
Sean, you've got it exactly backwards. The reason the top 400 pay so much taxes (in dollars) is because of the income and wealth distribution in this country, where the top 1% of people own approximately 40 to 50% of the wealth. But, because of regressive and unfair payroll taxes, the rich pay less than the average taxpayer, as a percentage of each dollar. In fact, four out of five Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. A fair and common-sense approach to tax reform would begin by cutting payroll taxes, not by helping out the obscenely rich. W
The Washington Post blew a hole the size of Austin, TX in the argument that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of taxes (what is a fair share anyway? 10%, 20%, 100%?). They reported that the top 400 richest taxpayers paid an amount almost equal to the bottom 40 million. That's enough cash to fund the State Department. If any group of people deserve a tax cut, it's these people.
Here's an angle I have barely heard: With income tax revenue being pushed on a smaller and smaller portion of the population the public desire for income tax cuts decreases. An average Joe who doesn't make enough to pay income tax doesn't see the benefit in supporting a tax cut that won't help him. It's suprising that Bush's tax cut still has majority support in a Newsweek poll. W
Of course, The Capital Times isn't noted for their objective reporting. Get this headline: "Scalia says he’s for ‘dead Constitution’". W
Kevin, you may be a little disappointed with Robert Bartley's observation:
Today the Senate will start a talkfest on the McCain-Feingold conceit, but there remains the little matter of the U.S. Constitution. In the last half year alone, no fewer than 10 federal district and appellate courts have rendered campaign-finance decisions. The score stands "Reformers" 1, First Amendment 9. Courts found that freedom of speech was abridged, a Brookings Institution summary reports, by such things as a Florida law regulating groups involved in issue advocacy, Colorado limits on independent political expenditures, an Alabama law requiring the Christian Coalition to register as a political action committee, a Montana ban on corporate contributions to influence ballot initiatives, and a Missouri law limiting what political parties could contribute to their candidates.
Bartley concludes with this: "But signs point to a more responsible outcome, such as a confusion that subjects the whole issue to a merciful death." W
Of course, some, including The Capital Times, found Scalia's speech at Marquette to be a lot of vapid nonsense. W