
Columnist.
Good news: The number of Americans using food stamps in 2014 declined slightly from the previous year. So why does the 2015 Index of Culture and Opportunity say this indicator is headed in the "wrong direction"? There are a couple of reasons. For one, the food-stamp program (officially known now as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) is still much larger today than it was a decade ago — or, indeed, just a few years ago. In 2008, it was below 30 million. By 2013, it had hit 47.6 million.
Do you think opposition to the Obama administration's deal with Iran is strictly a partisan issue? Hardly. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York recently joined half a dozen Democrats in the House of Representatives who have voiced doubts about the agreement. Who can blame them? It flunks the most basic litmus test imaginable. After all, what's the point of the deal? It is — or should be — to prevent Iran from building its own nuclear weapon. And by that metric, the deal doesn't begin to measure up.
Why do we follow the news? To be informed, of course. We naturally want to be aware of what's happening at home and around the world. In one sense, we've never been better equipped to do that. News is available 24/7/365. We read it, listen to it and watch it. And we do so with ease from the most crowded city street to the most remote mountaintop. But while this constant stream of information is certainly handy, it can also make it difficult to see the big picture. We're always on the ground, seeing what's right in front of us. We have only a vague sense of what's already happened — and what to expect.
Being conservative in a politically correct culture has never been easy. Whether you're a politician trying to explain a controversial sound-bite, or a voter attempting to defend your stance on a hot-button issue to co-workers, you either grow a thick skin — or learn to keep quiet. Sadly, you get used to having your motives impugned by people who assume that no one could possibly believe what you believe. You must have some ulterior motive, right? Say, for example, we need less regulation, and you'll be accused of shilling for some corporation. Call for more defense spending, and you're a warmonger.
There's always that one moment in a horror film when everyone thinks the villain has been killed, then bam — up he jumps, to the surprise of everyone.
President Reagan had a gift for proving his critics wrong. Almost none of the leading economists of the late 1970s thought that his supply-side, tax-cutting agenda, along with stable monetary policy and deregulation, could revive the U.S. economy. But the prosperity of the 1980s, with growth rates higher than 6 percent, proved the Gipper correct. An economics major from Eureka College understood our free-market system better than the so-called experts at Harvard, Yale and MIT. As the 2016 presidential campaigns gear up, Reagan's policies are under assault again, this time even from some on the right. This new group, called "reformicons," says that supply-siders are obsessed with cutting tax rates for the richest Americans at a time when middle-class tax cuts and tax credits should take precedence.
To say that conservatives haven't had much to cheer about at the Supreme Court lately is an understatement. Much has been said — and rightly so — denouncing the judicial acrobatics required to save Obamacare and strike down state bans on same-sex marriage. So I wanted to take a moment to spotlight a case where the court got it right: Michigan v. EPA. As the saying goes, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. And in ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency improperly ignored costs when it decided to regulate hazardous air pollutants from power plants, the majority made the right call. At issue is Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which directs the EPA to reduce air pollutants if the agency deems the regulation "appropriate and necessary." Part of what goes into determining what regulations are, in fact, "appropriate and necessary" is cost. And when it comes to the regulation in this case, the court found that the EPA hadn't done that.
"[A]s we mark our nation's birthday, we should take a moment to ask ourselves: What is the role of the people?"
"We the People." We've heard that phrase so often it's easy to overlook its significance. But as we mark our nation's birthday, we should take a moment to ask ourselves: What is the role of the people? Our nation is unique because of its universal founding principles. At the heart of these principles is the belief that people are free by nature and possess inherent rights. The use each one of us makes of these rights will naturally be different, and the outcomes of those choices will naturally differ, too. But the choice remains ours. Freedom is thus inextricably bound up with living our lives as we see fit. This is self-government in the truest sense of the term. We the people need not slavishly defer to experts. We can be trusted to govern ourselves.
Americans take justifiable pride in their right to free speech. People may be muzzled by their government in places such as Cuba and North Korea, but not here. You can say what's on your mind without fear of prosecution. But can you do so without fear of persecution? More and more, it seems, the answer is no. Say the "wrong" thing, and the Outrage Police swarm you. Do we need a communist government to shut down debate when we're eager to do it ourselves? To be sure, political correctness isn't a new phenomenon. Aggrieved parties throughout history have struggled to suppress viewpoints they disagreed with. But we live in an age where, for example, refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding qualifies you for a figurative firing squad (figurative as of this writing, but at the rate things are going, watch out).
Business success shouldn’t require taxpayer backing
Los Angeles unions want exemption from a higher minimum wage.
Utterly shameless. There really is no other way to describe what some unions are trying to pull when it comes to the minimum wage. The issue, of course, has been in the news quite a bit lately, especially in Los Angeles, with supposedly incensed workers waving their "Fight for 15" placards. It's all perfectly packaged for the media, an alleged David versus Goliath fight. Will those mean ol' fast-food joints and other stingy employers finally start paying a "living wage"? Tune in for the dramatic video. Never mind that a substantial hike in the minimum wage would price many unskilled workers right out of the market. Goodbye, entry-level jobs for men and women who will later become workers making a much better wage at a job with more responsibilities.
Memorial Day is to honor those who purchased our freedom with their blood
Scholarships for low-income children are worth preserving
"You know the airbag warning label on the sun visor? It might peel. That's why you have to bring your vehicle in."
Overregulation carries hidden costs
GoFundMe claims free speech and silences others
A diplomatic breakthrough could come at the expense of a nuclear breakout