Conservatives typically – and correctly – fault the regulatory state for increasing the cost of doing business and impeding job creation. But what about the argument that businesses don’t pay taxes (or regulatory fees), people do?
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is making a powerful case that the two go together in a way that could reduce the government’s footprint and decrease poverty.
“The regulatory part of Ryan’s anti-poverty plan goes after ‘regressive’ federal rules – those that have an outsize economic impact on low-income households,” reports The Hill. “Supporters of his plan say regulations are ultimately borne by ordinary consumers and households who pay extra when new restrictions are piled on to the products and services they use. The poor end up spending a greater…[more]
In recent days, the terms “Net Neutrality” and “Title II” have interspersed our national news cycle.
Most of the discussion, however, has occurred at the level of tech policy experts and political leaders inside the Beltway, rather than among the general public. As a result, even such undeniably learned opinion leaders as Yale Law graduate Michael Medved confess perplexity on the matter.
So what do they mean in everyday terms, and why should anyone beyond tech policy constellations care?
At their most foundational level, both terms relate to an…
"The most poisonous '-ism' now infecting Ferguson, Missouri, is not virulent racism. It's viral narcissism. Over the past two weeks, the impoverished St. Louis County suburb has become a magnet for self-absorbed publicity seekers of all colors and agendas. Perhaps the most repulsive species on display in Ferguson is the Journalisto Vanitatis. This breed of egotistical East-Coast reporters can…[more]