Still holds true after 85 years:
Source: Someone on Twitter or Facebook, can’t recall whom.
But it’s the thought that counts.
This is great news on several fronts, but especially for supporters of limited government and regulatory restraint (such as me), who’ve often viewed the EPA as an arrogant, tyrannical, and arguably unconstitutional agency.
From the skeptics and common sense win one department…
A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations, dealing a blow to the administration’s sweeping plan to address global warming.
In a 5-4 decision, the court halted enforcement of the plan until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”
By temporarily freezing the rule the high court’s order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.
The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted…
View original post 33 more words
The VAT is to me an obviously bad idea, especially as long as there is also an income tax. But why Senators Cruz and Paul would support one is way beyond me.
In early 2013, a reader asked me the best place to go if America suffered a Greek-style economic collapse.
I suggested Australia might be the best option, even if I would be too stubborn to take my own advice.
Perhaps because of an irrational form of patriotism, I’m fairly certain that I will always live in the United States and I will be fighting to preserve (or restore) liberty until my last breath.
But while I intend to stay in America, there is one thing that would make me very pessimistic about my country’s future.
Simply stated, if politicians ever manage to impose a value-added tax on the United States, the statists will have won a giant victory and it will be much harder to restrain big government.
But you don’t have to believe me. Folks on the left openly admit that a VAT is necessary to…
View original post 1,184 more words
Centralize everything in DC’s hands, if you want to achieve perfect mediocrity.
As we get deeper into an election season, many politicians feel compelled to discuss how to deal with poverty. And some of them may even be serious about trying to improve the system.
This hopefully will lead to big-picture discussions of key issues, such as why the poverty rate stopped falling in the mid-1960s.
If so, it helps to look past the headline numbers and actually understand the scope of the problem.
Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute explains that the official poverty data from the Census Bureau overstates the number of poor people.
…the official poverty rate is a positive embarrassment today. The poverty rate manifestly cannot do the single thing it was intended for: to count the number of people in our country subsisting below a fixed and absolute “poverty line.” Among its many other shortcomings, this index implicitly assumes that a family’s annual reported income…
View original post 1,176 more words
Via Prager University, Princeton University Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George looks at several reasons for the decline of liberty in America — from the growth of the national government particularly since the New Deal, to the growing willingness of the courts to “legislate from the bench” and the acquiescence and even collusion of the other two branches in that– and identifies one key reason: citizens’ own ignorance of our founding documents.
Here’s Professor George:
In other words, you’re not going to be a very successful owner, if you don’t understand the “owner’s manual.”
One reason I grew to be a limited government conservative is that the empirical evidence shows that it delivers better results, as in the linked article below:
In early November of last year, I shared some remarkable data from a groundbreaking study published by the European Central Bank (ECB).
The study looking at public sector efficiency (PSE) in developed nations and found that “big governments spend a lot more and deliver considerably less.”
Later in the month, I wrote about a second ECB study that looked at a broader set of nations and further confirmed that smaller government produces better results.
The first ECB study clearly concluded that “small” government is more efficient and productive than either “medium” government or “big” government. Based on the second ECB study, we can conclude that it’s even better if government is…well, I guess we’ll have to use the term “smaller than small.”
Today, we can augment this research by looking at a new study from the International Monetary Fund.
The IMF’s new working paper on “Fiscal Decentralization and the Efficiency…
View original post 517 more words