The debate about Social Security's future is raging across America. President Bush's Social Security Commission has provoked a full court political attack by the Democratic Party. The debate is full of sound and fury signifying a great deal. Its outcome will affect the pocketbooks and pensions of virtually every American under 60.
A number of environmentalists citing the adage "better safe than sorry," argue the so-called precautionary principle should be used in making policy. Thus, technology shouldn't be used until it be shown it's no threat to humans or the environment. Sounds reasonable in theory, but it's disastrous in practice.
I'm glad we have President Bush's modest tax cut and the phase out of the death tax, but is there a less fair, less productive tax than the capital gains tax? We should do away with it for both philosophical and practical reasons.
Is it possible to take a bad bill and a worse bill and merge them into a good bill? Not likely, but that's the task facing a conference committee when Congress returns to Washington from its August break.
Did George W. Bush make the right decision on federal funding for stem cell research? Or did he make a decision calculated to completely please no one?
In case you wondered what the benefits of the Bush National Energy Plan would be the center for data analysis figured it out. I doubt it will shut the critics up, but then what would?
I have a confession to make. It concerns television, and a show I like. Don't worry, it's not MTV. I haven't completely lost my mind. But some might consider this admission almost as bad.
School children across the country begin their annual trek back into our nation's classrooms this month. As they open up their history textbooks they are likely to read about names like Washington and Jefferson, Adams and Madison, Franklin and Paine, Trenchard and Gordon.
There's a breath of fresh air in the debate over the environment from a guy named Bjorn Lomborg, the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
According to USA Today, the Bush Administration's considering overhauling or simplifying the tax code. I wish them luck, but trouble generally follows measures to "simplify" the tax code.
I was intrigued — though not surprised — by the recent poll which reported that half of Americans surveyed couldn't come up with a single name when asked who the leader of the Democratic Party was.
Today's Social Security benefits are paid for by today's payroll taxes. As the nation's population ages – with people living longer and having fewer kids – the taxes we collect will at some point no longer be enough to cover all the benefits we are promising.
If one thing is certain about American society today, it's that it's not 1940 anymore. But that doesn't mean that Congress has caught on to that fact.
The war on SUVs continues unabated as environmentalists are working on congress to increase the gas mileage requirements for American cars.
When are unintended consequences no longer unintended? If you know bad things are going to come from supposedly beneficial actions, it seems to me we can't claim surprise.
As any governor will tell you, the very best day of the year is when the legislature packs up and heads home. Suddenly the contentiousness, the raw politics and the legislative pressure are gone, and one is tempted to raise his hands to the sky and shout, "Free at last!"
World War One seems as distant to us now as the Thirty Years War, but it set the stage for the 20th century in everything from politics to literature.
Ok, why not tax Internet sales? We tax sales at brick and mortar stores, after all.
Well, it's official. School choice is a popular success. Just not in America.
How bad is IRS information doled out to taxpayers? Worse than you imagined.
Now that the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security has issued its interim report exposing a financial crisis in Social Security's future, its time to begin the discussion of how we should solve it.
The democrats are peddling so much baloney about the fallout from President' Bush's tax cut, I'm surprised they didn't also include the bread and mayo.
Good, entertaining books about english usage are always welcome, from Edwin Newman's several books to John Simon's out-of-print-but-worth-finding paradigms lost to Brian Garner's dictionary of American usage. To these I would like to add Barbara Wallraff's "Word Court," which is now out in paperback.
After 50 years of pouring billions of dollars into the third world to alleviate poverty, what do organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have to show for it? Not much. In fact, living standards in many poor countries actually declined?
When I read that house majority leader Dick Armey and the ACLU agreed on something, I assumed it was a mistake. I had some stronger coffee, but the results came out the same. And sure enough, I agree with them too.