Diana Furchtgott-Roth. All good, and all require government from stepping back from the misguided interventions into commerce. I am perplexed by this:
As we enter a new decade, with a new Congress, we shouldn’t regard our 9.8% unemployment rate as the new normal. Rather, we should encourage Congress to draft new laws to fix the problem and return our unemployment rate back where it belongs-to the 4% or 5% range.
We don’t need new laws, we need to repeal existing ones. Okay, so we may need new laws to let markets operate more freely. We can do better than 9.8% unemployment, as Diana points out in her piece. 9.8% is the limit based on the current crew’s bad ideas.
Fredric U. Dicker:
If he achieves his two top goals — and we’ll know shortly if he can — there’s still hope that New York can be saved from its decades-long decline.
But if Cuomo, with all the effort, energy and thought he’s prepared to put into the job, fails in his effort, you might as well get going and beat the coming rush.
After 30 years of intensively chronicling the decline of New York and its government, I’m likely to be there with you.
The plot thickens.
Sources told The Post several neighborhoods were on the workers’ hit list — including Borough Park and Dyker Heights in Brooklyn and Middle Village in Queens — because residents there have more money and their politicians carry big sticks.
. . .
“It was more targeted than people actually think,” said a labor source. “Borough Park was specifically targeted [because of] . . . its ability to sort of gin up the p.r. machine.”
. . .
* Sources said Sanitation bosses issued verbal directives during the clean-up to give priority to streets near the homes of agency heads and other city bigwigs. “This happens all the time,” one Sanit worker said. “They make sure the bosses and politicians get taken care of.”
They would be investment banker and former “car czar” Steven Rattner and New York Attorney General and incoming governor Andrew Cuomo. Here.
Asks Michael Swartz. Uh, no, and not without adding costs to the American people. The obvious problem I see with Michael’s suggestion with “restoring the observance of remaining federal holidays to their rightful places” is that workers will demand and politicians will give them more days off to compensate for any reduction.
Good idea. Regulations are where all kinds of limits to freedom are buried: social engineering, social justice, political payoffs, competition stifled.
The tax forms are a common illustration of this: you get a tax break if you do this or have such and such. A flat tax, one rate with no exemptions, is a clear threat to this regime. That’s why it is a good idea.
Therefore, earmarking is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the existence of programs that enables the federal government to spend money on parochial activities.
Thus, the new Congress needs to see through the false alternative the earmarks debate has engendered. At bottom, it’s not a question of whether Congress or the president shall decide. Rather, after administration input, all but ministerial spending decisions belong to Congress — as constrained by the Constitution.
Here. Note to Tea Party.