Three fantastic items to read today. All worth the time.
Pushing green/solar energy, by lining the pockets of his buddies and campaign donors?
Another Obama favor for his solar cronies -Donald J. Boudreaux: Now the administration’s solar policy seems to be centered on making solar more expensive. In March, the Commerce Department announced it would impose tariffs on imported Chinese solar panels. Those tariffs will be passed on to solar panel buyers in the form of higher prices. Why this assault on Americans who buy solar panels made in China? Because Chinese solar panel makers receive government subsidies. The tariff is meant to tip the playing field back toward American producers. There’s nothing admirable about government subsidies for energy. We should break that habit ourselves. But in this case, Americans benefit without paying. If another country wants to subsidize the production of solar panels and sell them at a loss to consumers in the United States, why not let them do so? We Americans should be happy to let another government foot part of our bill for cleaner energy. Think of it as a gift from China to the American solar consumer.
Slam. Dunk. (via Dr. Newmark)
Government doesn’t give tax cuts, it takes more or less taxes – Keith Hennessey: The President’s language puts us on a slippery slope. Under this approach we treat all tax revenues as if they originate within the government. We create moral parity between giving tax cuts and increasing government spending. We trust government officials to reallocate society’s resources to those whom they determine most need it while ignoring the harm done by the taking. By ignoring this harm we set no limiting principle on the government’s ability to take that which we earn and own and give it to others. We make the rich pay more since they have greater ability to pay and less need.
While a little long, this piece on social justice is a must-read. (via Mark Perry)
The Tyranny of Clichés – Jonah Goldberg: In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell says that a writer can avoid the heavy lifting of making an original or insightful argument by simply turning his pen on autopilot and fueling it with “ready made” clichés. “They will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself,” writes Orwell. “It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.” More than a half century later, liberalism (and too much of conservatism) has switched to autopilot. For reasons I will discuss below, liberalism imposes itself not through sustained argument, but through a shabby tyranny of clichés, which hides its ideological underpinnings behind a façade of trite phrases and homespun truisms. Let us start with the example of “social justice.”