Our domestic automakers produce fine cars and trucks that people freely choose to buy. They make lots of money doing this. So why is the federal government shoveling hundred of millions of dollars annually in corporate welfare their way?
Some scientists boycotted a recent conference that examined the EPA's draconian proposal to regulate ultra-small soot particles. The sponsoring organization, the Annapolis Center, gets corporate money. According to Harvard epidemiologist Joel Schwartz, that makes the event look "like a set-up job."
Jeff Madrick, an economic journalist of statist bent, shows us the mind of a true leftist at work.
The Washington Times asked the new UN head why he thinks the agency has a PR problem in the United States. "It is a leftover from the late seventies and eighties," he said, "when there was a lot of talking about getting government off the back of people."
Washington's sudden fixation on campaign finance won't bring about honesty in government, and it won't increase anyone's liberty. But it does give the public a real-world civics lesson. For it shows that government is no neutral arbiter of justice, but a corrupt scheme by which the politically powerful enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
The welfare state keeps being reinvented under new labels. In 1993, the Clinton administration renewed the Bush program (dreamed up by then HUD secretary Jack Kemp) called "Moving to Opportunity" (MTO). It gave welfare recipients housing vouchers worth as much as $1,677 per month for rental housing in middle-class neighborhoods.
In October, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros spent $716 million to demolish decrepit housing projects. Before you cheer, consider this. The units won't be replaced with a market system. More money will be spent on yet another socialistic program, this time to pay welfare recipients to move into private housing in suburbia and elsewhere.
Which is a greater cause of cultural and moral decline: the private sector or the government? Asked another way, which is doing more to promote a return to civilized social norms: the market or the central state? The answer highlights a dividing line between left and right.
At times in this strange book, Mr. Pinkerton sounds like an advocate of the free market; fortunately, he really is not. "Fortunately," because our author has an anti-Midas Touch.
Shutting down the government was this Congress's most noble act. Though the freshmen, who forced the closing against the leadership's wishes, didn't properly prepare for the inevitable response from the media and the bureaucracy, they were on the right track. It may have been the only principled act in two years of political compromise.
