Link: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/04/column-how-much-taxation-is-enough.html

Excellent article.

Although, Goldberg again falls back on the “taxes are bad for economic growth and are economically inefficient” argument. Of course they are, but conservatives need to pound the moral argument more. He takes a good step in this direction when he says, “But any amount of taxation can be unjust if it is being used for bad reasons, is applied discriminatorily or if it’s taken without representation.” The key word in that statement is “discriminatorily"–the progressive income tax is an offense to equality. Progressives and liberals like to talk as if they are friends of equality (ever see those silly yellow-and-blue equals sign bumper stickers?), but they are not. While most conservatives want a single rate for everyone (whether through a consumption tax or a flat income tax), liberals want to overtax one group (those with high incomes) and undertax others (those with low incomes). They want to pick winners and losers. They are the violators of equality, sticker or no sticker.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/31/the_hostility_follies_104993.html

An excellent article about the pathetic temper tantrum being thrown by Democrats over the absolute, righteous, and supremely moral indignation of conservatives who are losing their country to socialism and Marxism.

Not that anyone cares, but he left out of his denunciations the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, who ridiculously claimed, just yesterday, that:

For decades now, the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from the growing ranks of paranoid, anti-government hate groups that draw their inspiration, vocabulary and anger from the far right … The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction – the right, not the left.

Somehow this guy won a Pulitzer Prize once. Unbelievable.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/20/palinophobes_hate_first_ask_questions_later_99240.html

As the hysteria over Sarah Palin has increased with the recent publication of her autobiography, I have tried to keep everything in perspective. It seems Jonah Goldberg feels the same, as expressed in the linked article.

I disagree with those who say that she’s a dolt, or dismiss her summarily. And the media have of course been completely unfair and vicious. But I also disagree with those who think she’s a savior.

As is obvious from my writings on this blog, I don’t much care for judging politicians heavily on personality, and quite honestly I look disdainfully on people who do. Apart from honesty, leadership is about the only character trait not connected with policy that is of any importance, and that being a negative when correlated with an ideology that subverts freedom. So many people get snared by charisma, or identity politics, or random personal connections. They don’t realize how shallow and superficial they appear. I think this should be pretty clear a year after a great many people voted for a man almost completely because of his personal characteristics, and now realize that all that charisma, post-racial talk, and public-speaking skillfullness doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if you’re pushing the wrong policy.

I generally support Sarah Palin because she is generally skeptical of federal government power and deferential to voluntary and cooperative association and a free economy. I suspect that my political philosophy may be closer to other, more libertarian conservatives but be farther from still others. She hasn’t got a terrible amount of experience, but then neither does Barack Obama. He gets away with it more because people think he is more intelligent (and perhaps he is). But what really matters in a job of frequent consequential decisions is your judgement. And it doesn’t matter how smart or politically skilled you are if your judgement is drawn from a foundation of belief in government, force, and redistribution. And, for that matter, it matters little how inexperienced you are if your judgement clearly understands the few proper functions for which government should take power away from individuals.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/18/a_tackle_box_full_of_race_bait_98371.html

Great stuff.

What to read? My Quite Right blog was created to tune in my readers to what I think are the best articles in political and economic commentary on the internet. But what I convey and comment on is only a tiny fraction of the reporting and perspectives produced every day. So each July I shall indicate who I believe are the essential top 10 writers to consistently read without waiting for me to recommend their specific articles.

These writers are those I read consistently myself. I have assembled this list only after considerable reflection. My criteria for choosing these ten are the following:

• Insightful. While it is important to have columnists who are excellent at reporting news and events (e.g., Lambro, Thomas), this must-view list includes those that provide us with unique and valuable insights into policy debates. They must be opinionated and have an original perspective. Poorly written arguments that introduce new ways of thinking may be more valuable than rehashed well-known arguments that are written with humor and finesse.
• Relevant. The writer must write about issues that are important and are in public discussion. Someone who is too much of an expert or always writes about a single topic can never be a must read. This is a tough hurdle for those columnists who are focused on a narrow range of issues.
• Intelligible. This often is the opposite of intelligent. Some of my favorite writers are academics on economic policy blogs (Kling, Caplan, Cowen), but while they are very insightful and often relevant, their use of jargon and esoteric concepts make them inaccessible to a wider audience.
• Prolific. The writer must write often enough that a reader who follows them will actually get plenty to read. A regular column in a newspaper or web site is almost essential. This criterion eliminates many of the talk radio hosts (e.g. Ingraham, Levin) who otherwise would make the list.
• Agreeable. The writer must have similar core principles to my own. This criterion is questionable yet necessary. After all, if a left-wing writer were insightful, relevant, and intelligible, why would it be not useful to read them? It would, but this list is what to read to find good ideas that work for us, not insights on how the left can swindle the country into accepting their agenda.

If you are a conservative libertarian and free-market fanatic like myself, here is the list of ten writers who will consistently produce must-read material in the coming year:

1. Richard Rahn. This CATO fellow and weekly columnist for The Washington Times consistently hits the nail on the head with current topics in economic policy. He has an excellent grasp of libertarian principles that guide him to an intellectually airtight and politically marketable free-market solution on every issue.
2. Charles Krauthammer. This veteran Washington Post columnist has been elevated to iconic levels in conservative circles lately due to his clever thinking and uncompromising irreverence in recent years. While his foreign policy verges to neoconservative, on domestic policy he is fervently anti-government and knows how to express it well.
3. Mark Steyn. A writer for National Review, Steyn is always thought-provoking, wordsmithy, and entertaining. His best work is on the Islamic threat to Western civilization, but he writes on all topics.
4. Jonah Goldberg. Another writer for National Review, Goldberg is very adept at seeing how seemingly small, non-ideological disputes or encroachments fit into larger patterns and the greater philosophical struggle.
5. Walter Williams. A Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Williams is unrivaled in his ability to apply economic principles to everyday situations and show how voluntary exchange and free markets are more efficient and more moral than government force.
6. Jacob Sullum. This senior editor for Reason magazine finds the great battles between libertarianism and statism and delivers a sharp perspective on why freedom is always the correct path.
7. Caroline Baum. Baum is an up-and-coming commentator on mostly financial and economic issues for Bloomberg. I have never read an article of hers where I didn’t get a good nugget to chew over and good ammunition to lob at left-wing foes.
8. Larry Kudlow. This CNBC talk show anchor also produces weekly commentary on the macro-economy and how government policies affect it. He is an unabashed cheerleader for capitalism, the stock market, economic growth, and supply-side economics.
9. Michelle Malkin. A top-notch extremely prolific journalist who unearths everything about the opposition. With over half a dozen posts a day, you will have no lack of reading material. She often chooses corruption and culture over serious policy discussion, but she does it very well.
10. Amity Shlaes. Another Bloomberg columnist, Shlaes specializes in economic history but often writes on other topics. With all the comparisons of today’s economy to the Great Depression, her repudiations of New Deal solutions will be welcome manna in the coming year.

Also worth keeping an eye on (honorable mentions): Victor Davis Hanson, Tony Blankley, George Will, Thomas Sowell, and David Limbaugh.

Link: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/01/obama-and-the-d.html

This is Jonah Goldberg’s take on the present state of the Democratic-Republican political divide. My question is, why alert them to their beguiled sense of superiority before they overreach? Most of the Democratic Congress and certainly Obama have not been around long enough to remember how short-lived the big Democratic majorities of 1993-94 were, so let them repeat their mistake.