Read it. I have an idea: Let’s cancel Illinois to avoid offending Americans.

Read it. I have a question: Why is this guy still in Congress? Why do Democrats cling to the status of The Crooked Party?

Read it. I have a question: How is it any business of Congress what kind of light bulbs we use? Haven’t they got anything better to do with their day?

Read it. The only thing that saves us is that we don’t get all the government we pay for.

Energy efficiency sounds so nice. Who could be against efficiency? Tradeofs, however, cannot be avoided. Thus, energy-efficiency really means that the government is going to choose how white your shirts are gonna be.

And therein lies the problem.

Ironically, the law could well reduce cleanliness and increase energy use.  If the new washers are as bad as Consumer Reports say they are people will just start to wash everything twice.

Can you say “AlGore”? Can you say “wimpy 1.6 gallon flush toilet”? We’re sure you can.

Read it. Amazing how talented the government can be when it comes to messing things up. And yet the progs want them in charge of everything.

Read it. And come, let us plod:

• The reason interest rates are what they are is because that’s the market-determined rate of risk for such loans, as determined by a lot of very highly-educated people (and computer programs) whose jobs depend on their being right about this sort of stuff.
• The way the government “halves interest rates” is by extending enough full-faith-and-credit-of-every-poor-sap-taxpayer guarantees to reduce the risk, which is reflected in the interest rate.
• The result of this is that people get loans who ordinarily wouldn’t, because they are too much of a risk.
• This means that, on down the line, these people default on the loans, which the government (i.e. YOU), because of the guarantees, has to pay for.

Which makes this statement…

Democrats described the legislation as costless to taxpayers, saying the rate cuts would be offset by a reduction of nearly $21 billion in subsidies paid by the government to lenders in the federal loan program.

… a rather obvious bald-faced lie; to the extent that it brings the rate of interest below the free-market rate, it will actually increase the amount of subsidies paid by the government to lenders in the federal loan program. But not for a couple of decades, by which time the Democrats in question will be safely retired with their cushy government pensions and countless bridges and roads named after Senator/Congressman Porkbelly.

Read it.

Congressional Democrats, who criticized Republicans for not fixing the alternative minimum tax when they were in power, have been unable to unify behind a plan to protect the growing number of middle-class families hit by the tax.

And that tells you everything you need to know about how TOTALLY USELESS the Democratic party is.

Read it. Yeah, well, talks cheap — let’s see some raids, maybe even some indictments.

Read it. Boy, I’m sure surprised. Aren’t you surprised?

Read it. You can lead a kid to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.

Read it. Well, Democrats cost more now than they used to.

Read it. And sometimes “enforcement” doesn’t work.

Read it. The only thing that saves us is that we don’t get all the government we pay for.

Read it. I’m still trying to figure out how this is a legitimate use of tax money.

Read it. Well, it’s like schools and water and sewage and garbage collection — politicians are elected to Do Stuff, and Doing Stuff is what keeps them in office. Most people grew up with government Doing Stuff, and so they can’t conceive that there might be another (and better) way.

NYT. Unfortunately, the English language is inadequate to express the contempt that this White House has for Senator Leahy. Can’t say that I blame them.

NYT. This is outrageous. And it’s one of the many absurdities that an “income” tax leads to. And it could be fixed — if our legislators weren’t too busy getting special breaks into the tax code.

NYT. Well, at least this shows some sense.

NYT. Geez, you can’t even buy votes any more. What’s this country coming to?

NYT. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

NYT. More evidence that high school teachers really want to pretend they’re college teachers more than they want to teach high school.

NYT. This is what comes of using the tax code for social engineering.

NYT. Guys, it’s a bridge. Put up a plaque, or something. In the mean time, people need to get across the fargin river.

“I think the public is asking for a distinctive bridge,” Councilwoman Diane Hofstede said. “This is a bridge that got international attention and was the scene of a terrible tragedy.”

Woman, the public is asking FOR A WORKING BRIDGE. A distinctive bridge is one THAT CARRIES TRAFFIC ACROSS THE RIVER.

This is the sort of bureaucratic bun-fight that is delaying the replacement of the World Trade Center in New York. Every two-bit politician has to get to pee in it before they like the taste.

NYT. Earmarks will get you if you don’t watch out.

WSJ. But, but, that’s how we buy votes!

PowerLine just noticed what LanguageLog pointed out earlier.

The House legislation funnels money to favored hospitals by treating them as if they are in high wage areas even though they aren’t.

Steve Sailer points out that it’s the government’s ease-credit-requirements-for-fashionable-minorities policies over the last 20 years that’s to blame for our present mortgage market problems. Not that anybody can remember that far back, of course.

LanguageLog. An illustration of how much government legislation (can you say the Internal Revenue Code?) contains language that is vague and appears to be of general application but actually goes to fit the very limited set of beneficiaries (can you say lobbyists?) that fit the apparently “vague” description.

Congress is full of lawyers. They do this sort of thing for a living. (And, in Congress, for fun & profit.)

WT. Another of the many reasons I don’t fly.

Of course, if he had been tortured by Saudi police, the ACLU would be okay with that.

EconLog. See the politician. See the politician dodge. Dodge, politician, dodge.

As Bryan points out, some hypotheticals are relevant, and some aren’t. If a candidate faces one that isn’t, it’s no shame to say, “That’s a stupid and irrelevant question, and I refuse to answer it.” That would show backbone; I would vote for such a candidate. But to dodge a relevant hypothetical, one that would illuminate either the candidate’s character or the candidate’s qualifications, is … well, just a dodge. I would avoid voting for such a slimeball.

Read it. Another inconvenient truth gets some sunshine.

NYT. “Terrorists! We’re just giving them away! While supplies last!”

Read it. And weep.

WSJ. Ted Stevens, in particular, seems to be in a competition with Senator Robber Byrd to see who can take the American taxpayer for the most.

NYT. I don’t know where these guys shop, but if you hit Wal-Mart or Kroger you get plastic whether you want it or not. Why? Because plastic is thin and strong and easier to store and use for its weight – same reason stuff is made out of metal rather than wood. And it’s cheaper; and in the absence of laws making people do things the government way instead of their way, cheaper wins.

If they were to come up with some way to process and recycle common plastic bags, they wouldn’t need all of this bureaucracy. Hey, maybe that’s why they haven’t…?

John Fund points out how much our legislators could use some adult supervision.

It underlines what I’ve always said: All the rules in the world don’t matter if the people charged with enforcing the rules choose to ignore them.

NYT. Great — cheating the public has become the new Washington status symbol.

And once again Steve Sailer nails it.

Techdirt. Two words: Paper. Ballot. Works every time it’s tried.

Techdirt. Can’t say that this is all that much of a surprise. I mean, who works for the government? Affirmative action hires and other people who can’t make it in the real world of working adults. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer, you might say.

Read it. If you aren’t living off of the government (i.e. the rest of us), how lame is that?

Techdirt. An excellent question. Pardon my cynicism, but I can think of a number of sordid possibilities.

For those unfamiliar with the subject, here are the priorities of a typical bureaucrat:

1. Keeping my job. (Not doing my job, but keeping my job.)
2. Keeping my boss happy.
3. Keeping my friends happy, preferably by giving them government jobs too.
4. Keeping my boss’s friends happy.
5. Keeping the politician we all work for happy.
6. Keeping happy the people who give money make sure that the politician we all work for keeps his job.
7. Keeping happy the people who rally blocs of dimwitted but nevertheless voting public to make sure that the politician we all work for keeps his job.
8. Any step necessary to get me a better (i.e. same work, more money) job.
9. Keeping the people who agree with me politically happy.

You will note that “taxpayers” and “the public interest” have no place on the list.

NYT. There’s a headline you don’t see every day. Guess it’s really not a matter of principle after all.

NYT. Well, let’s see: She was appointed by her father, the Governor at the time. Ethics questions? Don’t see no ethics questions there.

I really like the reference to “self-described ethics watchdog group”. The Times deals with “self-described watchdog groups” all the time, taking their bloviations as factual; this is the first time I can recall the phrase “self-described” ever used in the views media.

WT. Why it should come as a surprise to anyone that Democrats can come up with more extensive plans to spend taxpayer money than Republicans astonishes me.

What doesn’t surprise me is that Rudy Giuliani has embraced the Bob Dole “we can spend money like Democrats but more efficiently” role in this election. Giuliani is like John McCain: He only counts as a Republican because the Democrats are a bunch of left-wing nutters.

This is why you need to subscribe to the online edition of the Wall Street Journal. Highlights:

New York Senator Chuck Schumer tells the New York Times that he’ll oppose this unless the tax increase also applies to real estate and other partnerships that also now pay the 15% carried interest tax rate. To put it another way, Mr. Schumer is saying he’ll only support the higher tax rate if it applies to more people. Meanwhile, by playing this “good cop” role, Mr. Schumer is raising millions of dollars in campaign contributions from hedge funds and private equity for Democratic Senate candidates running in 2008. Brilliant.

An excellent illustration of why the scorpion stung the turtle.

Deny the domestic manufacturing deduction to oil producers. This is part of the Senate Finance Committee’s energy bill and is estimated to raise $11.4 billion over 10 years. How this will increase domestic oil production amid $77 a barrel oil and widespread clamor for “energy independence” is one of those mysteries that Congress prefers not to explain.

Perhaps because there’s no sane explanation.

Engadget. And wonder what ever happened to those nice paper ballots that were so easy to check and so difficult to hack.

The problem with paper ballots, of course, is that they take a lot of work to tally, and you can’t have the result by the time the 11 0’clock news comes on. God forbid that accurate elections should take priority over making bureaucrats’ and journlists’ jobs easier.

Oh, and with paper ballots the bureaucrats don’t have a lot of money to splash around. That’s key too.