There has been a lot of talk recently about foreigners who hate our prosperity and civilization, and seek ways to inflict violence in retaliation. Well, here is another case in point, except these are not swarthy Islamic terrorists; they are diplomats and statesmen on nobody's list of suspicious characters.
In its original meaning, "crisis" signifies a turning point that can either lead to improvement and recovery or to more severe deterioration. In the case of Argentina, with the future of the Argentinean people in mind, one must hope for the abandonment of its interventionist economic system, with its reliance on a bureaucratic apparatus and its self-chosen dependency on foreign credits.
After laboring mightily and giving birth to the 2001-2002 federal budget, politicians returned home for the holidays, where they spent much of their time emphasizing their role in bringing home the bacon to those local interests who benefit. But as Congress returns to "the work of the people" in a midterm election year, it is worth remembering that not one cent of the funding came from anyone except taxpayers.
New York Governor George Pataki has abandoned his original platform for the same reason that Republicans usually sell out: he has chosen staying in power over cutting government.
When the state passes a law, even if trivial, it backs that law by the threat of force. Sometimes it actually uses it. Ray Haynes explains.
There was a time when the word reform described a process of renewal, of change, and of taking new steps towards correcting a problem. With the rise of campaign finance reform, that is no longer the case.
In a free market, it is wholly unwarranted. Brad Edmonds considers three cases.
Once we accept that government has a legitimate role in divvying out economic favors among its citizens, on what basis do we make moral distinctions among competing demands?
They have linked arms throughout American history, with results that corrupt both politics and the free-enterprise system.
The New England Journal of Medicine has it backwards: it's public, not private, money that skews research agendas.
