Ron Paul’s ‘Plan to Restore America’ | Cato @ Liberty

Ron Paul’s ‘Plan to Restore America’ | Cato @ Liberty: 'Republican policymakers – including the current GOP field of presidential candidates – talk a good game about reducing spending, but very few are willing to spell out exactly what they’d cut. As NRO’s Kevin Williamson puts it in the title of his write-up on the plan, “Ron Paul Dropping a Reality Bomb on the GOP Field.”'

Bad for Taxpayers and Whales | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary

Bad for Taxpayers and Whales | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The destruction of Gulf Coast wetlands, which had acted as a buffer from hurricanes, magnified the impact of Hurricane Katrina. We can debate the role of Washington in protecting the environment, but at a minimum we can all agree we should not be actively subsidizing its destruction with tax dollars.

The flood insurance program not only places the environment in harm's way, but does the same to the very people it attempts to benefit. By under-pricing flood risk, the program makes it cheaper to live in a flood plain than it would be otherwise. Unquestionably, that distortion gives families who would not have done so an incentive to live in the path of a potential flood.'

Abolish the Air Marshals | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary

Abolish the Air Marshals | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The air marshals' deterrent effect has largely withered away because of a change in al Qaida tactics. The would-be shoe- and underwear-bombers were merely trying to blow up aircraft, not take control of the cockpit. Both were tackled by the passengers and crew of their target flights, not shot or apprehended by air marshals.'

The Current Wisdom: Imitation, Flattery and More Bad News for Climate Models | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary

The Current Wisdom: Imitation, Flattery and More Bad News for Climate Models | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'But, no matter how you spin it, or where the analysis appears, this fact remains: over the last three decades, the climate model projections offered up thus far, have been, and continue to be, sizeable overestimates of reality. Give me all the excuses that you want, but if the excuses are indeed real, then obviously they are important drivers of the climate systems and therefore must be considered when offering up future climate projections. Failing to do so, as we have seen, leads to failing forecasts. And until significant improvements are made in the models (improvements that may very well result in a determination of a lower climate sensitivity), I see no compelling reason why we should bank on existing climate model projections for the future state/behavior of the climate.'