The Thursday wrap
The big guns of big liberalism are using Hurricane Sandy to make big, bogus and politicized arguments for an even larger federal government. “A big storm requires big government,” blared a New York Times editorial even before the storm had run its course on Tuesday. Of course, it was a setup to bash Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for supposedly wanting to gut FEMA. Actually, he wants to streamline FEMA and give more direct control to the states to make its response to disasters more effective. And never mind that it's Barack Obama who, in his fiscal 2013 budget, actually proposed cutting the federal disaster agency's budget by more than $10 billion. But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of promoting the failed president you've endorsed, right? ... Never mind that the United States government has a Department of Commerce, Mr. Obama says he'll create even more bureaucracy in a second term by creating a Cabinet-level Department of Business. Why doesn't Obama simply name it for what he intends it to be — Department of National Industrial Policy, charged with the fatal conceit of further commanding the economy from his central government gun turret? ... Taxpayers, courtesy of the Department of Energy, spent about $300,000 for each of the 400 jobs “created” by the now bankrupt A123 Systems electric-car battery company, reports The Washington Times. It is the sad essence of the failure of command economics in general and Obamanomics in particular.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.