Ultimately, it is investors who guarantee other people's incomes in a market economy, even though the investors' own incomes are by no means guaranteed. Reducing investors' incentives to take risks is reducing the jobs their investments are likely to create.

Is paleolibertarianism virtually dead? John Derbyshire seems to think so. In this piece, I turn to Ilana Mercer — Derbyshire's old friend — to show that it is not.

Unless the Democrats and Republicans in Congress can reach an agreement on an extension, many temporary tax-cut provisions will expire at the end of this year.

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, education is the orphan issue of this year’s presidential campaign. Why? Because the subject is so complex, involving massive federal programs, expenditures of billions of dollars, millions of students who can’t read, politicized teacher unions, national tests, etc., that the only thing any candidate can say about education is that he’s in favor of improving it. But “it” remains untouchable, for to say anything significant about “it” can get you into a lot of trouble.

That‘s why Beverly Eakman’s new book, Agenda Games, is so welcome. She takes on this elusive subject in a way that no contemporary political writer would dare. She writes: “Education is the game-changer conservatives love to hate. But education will determine, ultimately, on which side America will fall in 2013 and beyond — Nanny State socialism or representative democracy.”

The problem Mitt Romney has had during the entire campaign is the perception among many, in both parties, that he’s soft, and cynical, a limp and bendable chameleon, and that he’s too rich to understand the lives, work and problems of everyday people, that he thinks he’s better than the rest of us even when his performance is sorely lacking.

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media