Opinion: The answer is: Spend less. Period. - Grover G. Norquist and Mike Needham and Phil Kerpen and Al Cardenas and Duane Parde and Daniel J. Mitchell - POLITICO.com

Opinion: The answer is: Spend less. Period. - Grover G. Norquist and Mike Needham and Phil Kerpen and Al Cardenas and Duane Parde and Daniel J. Mitchell - POLITICO.com: 'Let’s be balanced, they insist, and promise to cut some spending and raise some taxes. Having pushed spending way up, they now want to pretend this spending is normal or, at least, inevitable. It isn’t.'

'In 1990, the same trick was played out — this time at the expense of President George H.W. Bush and the American people. A two-to-one promise brought higher taxes and higher spending. When tax hikes are on the table, the talk about spending cuts evaporates. Oddly enough, the tax hikes remain.'

Referendum Initiatives Prevent Eminent Domain Abuse | Ilya Somin | Cato Institute: Commentary

Referendum Initiatives Prevent Eminent Domain Abuse | Ilya Somin | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'In reality, economic development condemnations often destroy local economies by wiping out neighborhoods, small businesses and schools. Moreover, the new owners are usually not required to actually produce the development they promised. In the Poletown case, the new factory produced only about half as many new jobs as were promised. In Kelo, nothing has been built on the condemned property six years after the Supreme Court upheld the takings.

Private developers who have a genuinely valuable project should be able to acquire the land they need through voluntary purchase. One of the strongest indications that their proposed project really is more valuable than current uses of the same land is their willingness to pay the current owners a price high enough to persuade them to sell. Economic development takings also undermine growth by reducing the security of property rights. If landowners fear that their land might be condemned, they are less likely to invest in it.'

The Real "1 Percent" | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

The Real "1 Percent" | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Roughly 80 percent of millionaires in America are the first generation of their family to be rich. They didn't inherit their wealth; they earned it. How? According to a recent survey of the top 1 percent of American earners, slightly less than 14 percent were involved in banking or finance.'

'since 2007, there has been a 39 percent decline in the number of American millionaires.

Among the "super-rich," the decline has been even sharper: The number of Americans earning more than $10 million a year has fallen by 55 percent. In fact, while in 2008 the top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income here, that figure has declined to just 16 percent. Inequality in America is declining.'

A Lesson on the Laffer Curve for Barack Obama | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary

A Lesson on the Laffer Curve for Barack Obama | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The key takeaway is that the IRS collected fives times as much income tax from the rich when the tax rate was far lower. This isn't just an example of the Laffer Curve. It's the Laffer Curve on steroids and it's one of those rare examples of a tax cut paying for itself.

Folks on the right, however, should be careful about over-interpreting this data. There were lots of factors that presumably helped generate these results, including inflation, population growth, and some of Reagan's other policies. So we don't know whether the lower tax rates on the rich caused revenues to double, triple, or quadruple. Ask five economists and you'll get nine answers.

But we do know that the rich paid much more when the tax rate was much lower.'

Executive Privilege Claim Ahead on Solyndra | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary

Executive Privilege Claim Ahead on Solyndra | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'as is so often the case in politics, the real scandal is what's gone on in broad daylight. Solyndra is a perfect illustration of the dangers of government/business "partnership."

"We're all in this together," has been Obama's continual refrain this fall while pushing his $449 billion jobs bill. Sure, it's a collectivist notion that's hard to reconcile with a country dedicated to the individual pursuit of happiness. But he doesn't really mean it.

In this half-socialized, corporatist sector of privatized profit and socialized loss, we're only "all in it together" if a federally favored company goes belly up — as Solyndra did, sticking the taxpayer with tab. "One has to take risks in order to promote innovative manufacturing," as Energy Secretary Steven Chu put it last week.'

'Today, with unprecedented levels of money and power flowing to Washington, more and more Americans fear that the game is rigged. Can you blame them?'

Keynes Was No Liberal - Allen McDaniels - Mises Daily

Keynes Was No Liberal - Allen McDaniels - Mises Daily: 'Keynes called his theory "general" because he claimed it would work not only in a laissez-faire setting but also, and more easily, in a totalitarian one.'

The Immorality of Democratic Voting - Kel Kelly - Mises Daily

The Immorality of Democratic Voting - Kel Kelly - Mises Daily: 'How is it that people are outraged when a CEO steals from his company, or a street thug steals a car, but they are not upset with themselves and their poorer neighbors for stealing from those who rightfully earned more money than they?'

'In 2008, congresswoman Maxine Waters threatened, on behalf of "society," to nationalize (i.e., to steal) the privately owned companies in the oil industry[9] due to the "large" profits they were making, since oil was at the highest price in years. But Congress itself brought about the high profits by

sanctioning the printing of money by the Fed (increased demand) and
preventing new oil drilling and refining (reduced supply).
One hundred fifty years ago, oil was a worthless substance. Companies voluntarily extracted and refined it, and made it useful, significantly improving our lives in the process. But by threatening nationalization, the government now threatens to take away the property of the millions of individuals who own these companies, by force, against their will. Americans should have been shocked and aghast that this government threat could happen in their own "free" country; instead, most agreed with her sentiments. If this is moral, then virtually anything could be argued as being moral.'

More Ratings, Not Fewer | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary

More Ratings, Not Fewer | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'In the midst of a crisis, politicians and regulators all too often believe they can restore "confidence" by silencing the bearers of bad news. Witness the common banning of short selling whenever bank stocks take a tumble, as if speculators were to blame for the problems at Lehman or Fannie Mae.'

How to Fix the Housing Crisis - Doug French - Mises Daily

How to Fix the Housing Crisis - Doug French - Mises Daily: 'These plans keep people chained to underwater mortgages, keeping them from moving to where there are more and better job opportunities.

Unemployed heavy-equipment operator Charles Mills wanted to leave North Las Vegas for Oklahoma and a job, but he is $200,000 underwater on a home he bought at the peak of the housing market in 2006. The plans mentioned by Blinder and Feldstein would relieve Mills of roughly $190,000 of the debt, but the principal reduction won't put him back to work.'

'All of these plans are not really aid to underwater homeowners as much as another bailout for the banks — not to mention Fannie and Freddie.'

'Those looking for mortgages should expect to put 20 percent down. Values in a bankruptcy sale would reflect this reality and then some. Based on the liquidation prices received by the FDIC and other distressed debt sellers, this mortgage paper would likely be scooped up for half or a third of the home's value.

Buyers of the paper would immediately negotiate with borrowers to create loans that are conforming (80 percent LTV) and performing.'

'"Around 90% of Selene's loan modifications involve reducing the principal," James R. Hagerty wrote in the WSJ, "compared to less than 2% of the modifications done by federally regulated banks in the first quarter."

And while many upside-down borrowers can't even find a human to talk to about their loan, let alone sit down and renegotiate terms that will benefit both parties, Selene immediately tries to contact the borrowers on the notes they have purchased, "sometimes sending a FedEx package with a gift card that can be activated only if the borrower calls a Selene debt-workout specialist."

It's hard to imagine Fannie and Freddie being so proactive.'

How Cutting Pentagon Spending Will Fix U.S. Defense Strategy | Benjamin H. Friedman | Cato Institute: Commentary

How Cutting Pentagon Spending Will Fix U.S. Defense Strategy | Benjamin H. Friedman | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Far bigger savings are possible if the Pentagon is recast as a true defense agency rather than one aimed at something far more ambitious.'

'the U.S. military is currently structured to exercise power abroad, not provide self-defense. The U.S. Navy patrols the globe in the name of protecting global commerce, even though markets easily adapt to supply disruptions and other states have good reason to protect their own shipments. Washington maintains enormous ground forces in order to conduct nation-building missions abroad — despite the fact that such missions generally fail at great cost. Garrisons in Germany and South Korea have become subsidies that allow Cold War-era allies to avoid self-reliance.

Not only are these missions unnecessary, they are counterproductive. They turn economically capable allies into dependents, provoke animosity in far-flung corners of the globe, and encourage states to balance U.S. military power, often with nuclear weapons. A strategy based on restraint would allow Washington to save at least about $1.2 trillion over a decade, three times what the Obama administration is now asking for.'