I never did get around to linking to my op-ed on Elena Kagan. It was another in the series of dueling op-eds with my colleague Ed Fallone. A letter to the editor last week says that I think nomininating a legal progressive is "breaking the rules." I said no such thing. It is exactly what I would expect from a liberal President. My point was simply that we ought to be clear about what is going on and, in my view, the Senate is not obligated to defer to the President's choice.
Nor did I link to my column on transit in last week's Journal Sentinel. I got a lot of e-mail on that one. The best critical points were that the economics of rail could be changed by significant increases in oil prices (agreed) and that there are reasons that rail and highways might not be privately provided. Although I agree with that too. The point is whether the benefits outweigh the cost, not whether rail is publicly or privately provided.
Finally, here is my latest Culture Con column in WI Magazine, deconstructing the President's commencement address at the University of Michigan.
1 comment:
The stimulus package was "without evident economic impact"? Mark Zandi, former economic advisor to John McCain, estimates that GDP is 3% larger than it would have been without the stimulus plan, and there are 2.6 million more jobs than there would have been without it. The median estimate of 50 reputable economists canvassed by USA Today is that unemployment would have been 10.8% without the stimulus package. The stimulus package was a "riot of pent-up demand for Democratic Party gewgaws and indulgences"? Are roads, bridges, teachers, firefighters, and policemen "Democratic Party gewgaws and indulgences"? What about tax cuts for 95% of Americans?
Post a Comment