"[T]hey [the House] went off and passed by 324-82 votes the so-called NOPEC bill. The NOPEC bill is, in effect, a suit against OPEC, which, if I recall correctly, stands for the Oil Price-Exploiting Club. "No War For Oil!," as the bumper stickers say. But a massive suit for oil — now that's the American way!
"It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act," declared the House of Representatives, "to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product... or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum product in the United States."
Er, OK. But, before we start suing distant sheikhs in exotic lands for violating the NOPEC act, why don't we start by suing Congress? After all, who "limits the production or distribution of oil" right here in the United States by declaring that there'll be no drilling in the Gulf of Florida or the Arctic National Mosquito Refuge?"
"A 'West Wing' Rerun?" by David Boaz with Cato:
"And in the debate, Vinick showed those libertarian-center colors against Santos’s tired old big-government liberalism dressed up in appeals to hope. The morning after that debate aired on NBC, libertarian-leaning Republicans told each other, “if only a real candidate could articulate our values as well as a liberal actor did!” Asked about creating jobs, Vinick declared, “Entrepreneurs create jobs. Business creates jobs. The President’s job is to get out of the way.”...
His closing statement:
Matt has more confidence in government than I do. I have more confidence in freedom — your freedom; your freedom to choose your child’s school, your freedom to choose the car or truck that’s right for you and your family, your freedom to spend or save your hard-earned money instead of having the government spend it for you. I’m not anti-government. I just don’t want any more government than we can afford. We don’t want government doing things it doesn’t know how to do or doing things the private sector does better or throwing more money at failed programs because that’s exactly what makes people lose faith in government."
The post is comparing the final election on the Wst Wing to the current run for president. The whole post is worth a read.
"For All the Ecological Concern, Economy Drives Energy Use" WSJ by Jeffrey Ball:
"Gasoline consumption is down. Hybrid-car sales are up. Wal-Mart is selling millions of squiggly energy-efficient light bulbs. Proof of a new wave of environmental consciousness?
For all the talk about global warming, what is prompting Americans to rein in their fossil-fuel use isn't the effect of their consumption on the planet. It is the effect on their pocketbooks."
"McCain Defends Opposition to Veterans Bill" Washington Wire:
"He also paid tribute to fellow Vietnam War veteran Jim Webb, his colleague in the Senate, who is prime sponsor of the veteran benefits bill and added that it would have been “much easier politically” for him to have joined in sponsoring the bill.
But he said he couldn’t do that, saying that the Webb bill would give veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits at those who re-enlisted several times.
The Webb bill provides $52 billion over 10 years for college funding for veterans who have served on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001. It would cover the cost of the most expensive in-state public school, with the amount of aid linked to a veteran’s length of service.
Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama returned to the Capitol from the campaign trail to support the bill. Sen. McCain wasn’t there for the vote, but said he opposed it and preferred a narrower version he had drafted."
I left the following comment, edited for my stupid misspellings:
"What’s the point of the Webb bill? Is it to “thank” them for their service? If so, say thank you and move on. Do you think they are under-compensated for their work? Pay them more. All the education promise is is additional comp. Not every enlisted soldier wants a college degree. Some don’t need one because they’ve already got one. Why focus the benefit one one group of unlisted soldiers and exclude all others who don’t want/need a college education? I don’t see one benefit of going about it this way."
"Climate Reality Bites" WSJ editorial:
"And for the most part, the politicians favor cap and trade because it is an indirect tax. A direct tax – say, on gasoline – would be far more transparent, but it would also be unpopular. Cap and trade is a tax imposed on business, disguising the true costs and thus making it more politically palatable. In reality, firms will merely pass on these costs to customers, and ultimately down the energy chain to all Americans. Higher prices are what are supposed to motivate the investments and behavioral changes required to use less carbon.
The other reason politicians like cap and trade is because it gives them a cut of the action and the ability to pick winners and losers. Some of the allowances would be given away, at least at the start, while the rest would be auctioned off, with the share of auctions increasing over time. This is a giant revenue grab. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these auctions would net $304 billion by 2013 and $1.19 trillion over the next decade. Since the government controls the number and distribution of allowances, it is also handing itself the political right to influence the price of every good and service in the economy."
"Republicans Are in Denial" WSJ op-ed by Tom Coburn:
"Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn't good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising...
Compassionate conservatism's starting point had merit. The essential argument that Republicans should orient policy around how our ideas will affect the poor, the widow, the orphan, the forgotten and the "other" is indisputable – particularly for those who claim, as I do, to submit to an authority higher than government. Yet conservatives are conservatives because our policies promote deliverance from poverty rather than dependence on government.
Compassionate conservatism's next step – its implicit claim that charity or compassion translates into a particular style of activist government involving massive spending increases and entitlement expansion – was its undoing. Common sense and the Scriptures show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not his neighbor's possessions. Spending other people's money is not compassionate."
Compare that with the illustrious Mike Huckabee:
"Huckabee On The Next Republican Revolution" by Will Mari for The Huffington Post (HT: Nachama Soloveichik):
"Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for."
Nachama had this to add:
"Huckabee is subscribing to the liberal, not to mention condescending, notion that people cannot better their lives without government holding their hand a good part of the way. Huckabee is entitled to his opinion, but he shouldn't pretend to be an economic conservative when he rejects the basic tenet upon which conservatism is based."
No comments:
Post a Comment