Republicans, or Democrats?
My biggest problem with Democrats is that they’re anti-economics, with devastating results over the past decades.
[Update a few minutes later]
[Update a while later]
Speaking of Republicans being anti-science, I don’t agree with Herman Cain that being gay is “a choice.” Being straight was never a “choice” for me.
…is over.
I think this is a good thing. A lot of people hate a la carte pricing, but when you bundle things, there are no signals as to what the real demand for various goods and services are. Also, I don’t like subsidizing other people for stuff that I don’t need.
Some thoughts from Sonia Arrison.
Thoughts from Daniel Hannan.
…over at Open Market.
[Update a few minutes later]
Mike Griffin inadvertently explains why we don’t need a heavy-lift vehicle.
Did Chris Dodd and Barney Frank kill it?
Tar. Feathers.
…and the dumb:
The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’” Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, “Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing.”
I guess I’d be disappointed, if I had had any expectations of brilliance on his part. But I never had any reason to, other than the bien pensant telling me I should.
My thoughts on the latest (or repeating) crony-capitalism boondoggle, over at Pajamas Media.
It’s easy to blame her for Michigan’s woes, but my home state has to own up to the fact that they voted for her:
With this kind of record, most politicos might take refuge in prudence. Not Ms. Granholm. Today she is running around the nation selling a book and a message. The book is called “A Governor’s Story: The Fight for Jobs and America’s Economic Future.” Her message—that Granholm’s Michigan shows the way forward—has been taken seriously in all the places you might expect: the New York Times and Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”
At the top of Ms. Granholm’s claims is that she knows that low taxes and lean government are no prescription for growth because she tried supply-side and found it wanting. To prove her point, her appendix lists 99 business and 17 individual “tax cuts” she approved. She notes likewise that both state spending and the number of state employees dropped during her time.
In fact, almost all Ms. Granholm’s “tax cuts” are tax credits or other forms of tax preferences. A less delicate way of saying this is that far from reducing rates for everyone, Ms. Granholm played favorites. That meant a more complicated tax code where trendy businesses (green jobs, anyone?) that would fail without subsidies are effectively underwritten by non-favored businesses and other taxpayers.
A good plan, as always. Not.