In response to my comment last evening that TEA Party types took it in the rear yesterday on the tax compromise, Stephanie writes: The TEA party has been advocating for lowered tax rates which they got in the form of continuation of the current tax rates (no increases on anyone), reductions on payroll taxes, reductions on business taxes, reductions on estate taxes (under current rules would have gone to 55%

Here’s the deal: Democrats want to raise taxes on “the rich”. They believe that not raising taxes on the “middle class” will spur the economy on, but that somehow — simultaneously — raising taxes on “the rich” won’t hurt the economy in any way. Does that follow? I mean, who do they think employs people>? Other than the government, I mean? They also believe that extending unemployment benefits is better

With a class action suit against Wal-Mart soon reach the Supreme Court, it is important to remember why the left truly hates Wal-Mart, and to recognize to what lengths they will go to invent excuses for killing industry that simply proves too profitable and efficient — all while pretending that they are doing so as a matter of standing for the little guy. Because the truth is, just as the

Jonah Goldberg: Fourteen months into his presidency, in March 2010, Obama succeeded in muscling through Congress a partial government takeover of the national health-care system. That legislative accomplishment followed Obama’s decision a year earlier, without congressional approval, to nationalize two of the country’s Big Three automobile companies. In the intervening months, he had also imposed specific wage ceilings on employees at banks that had taken federal bailout money—the first such

Peter Berkowitz, Policy Review: […] it was Obama’s decision — against the advice of several of his closest advisers — to seek comprehensive health care reform in the face of an historic economic crisis and to resolutely pursue it month after month despite vocal majority opposition instead of concentrating on reviving the economy and creating jobs that sent a loud and clear message that the president placed progressive political transformation

Stanley Kurtz responds to David Frum and William Galston, whose new organization, No Labels, seeks to set a kind of pre-determined political speech perimeter, with Frum and liberal activist Galston helpfully setting the boundaries for acceptable public utterance. That is, Frum and Galston want to replace the classically liberal ideas of free speech and tolerance with the idea of Frum and Galston-approved speech, which by dint of its approval by

Started strong last week, only to end with a fizzle: 10/16. For the year, 111/177. I need to finish very strong, having fallen from the 97th percentile all the way down to the 89th. Which means I need to take chances on a number upset choices. So, for those of you who look at my picks rather than the picks of actual NFL experts, here we go: Philly over Houston

My son has a wrestling meet today at a gym over 90 miles from the homestead. So I’ll be on the road for quite awhile and elbow deep in breakfast burritos. In the interim, I’m leaving the keys to the place with the dolphin in the pea coat, who returned last week from parts unknown with a spanking new four inch scar on his cheek and a sudden and visceral

WSJ: Debates over taxes and spending are at root about political philosophy: How big should government be? How much income should it redistribute, and to whom? We mention this to explain why today’s report from President Obama’s deficit commission is landing with such a predictable political thud. This doesn’t mean that Co-Chairmen Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles haven’t offered some useful ideas, much better ideas overall than we feared. As

Yeah. Who didn’t see this coming. Or this. As the UN goes, here’s my position: Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.