Raise taxes on the rich, increase the minimum wage, expand government benefits – this is the liberal recipe for success when it comes to shrinking the income inequality gap.
In my discussion of deficits and debt, I criticize the Congressional Budget Office for assuming that government fiscal balance is the key determinant of economic growth.
I don’t like giving international bureaucrats tax-free salaries. And it really galls me when they use their privileged positions to promote statism. So you can understand why I’m not a big fan of the International Monetary Fund.
Today's financial crisis in Europe may yet be papered over, just as the collapse of Creditanstalt was decades ago. But where will the next crack in the facade appear?
Despite the stock market's rapid ascent to record levels, economic analysts were warning that it doesn't reflect the economy's anemic fundamentals and that we may well be entering another bubble that's about to burst.
It's a safe bet that most conservative Republicans would rush to support a political leader with the following record, especially in a traditionally Democratic state:
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9 an hour. That would be almost a 25 percent increase. Let's look at the president's proposal, but before doing so, let's ask some other economic questions.
We should not accept the statist premise that most government spending helps people. Government spending is not just wasteful or inefficient, but all too often serves to crush the private economy and individual freedom.
The bleak truth about the comatose Obama economy is not just that it's barely breathing, but that it's still not far from another recession.
Decades ago, the sociographer Milton Himmelfarb coined the aphorism that "American Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans." And his words ring as true today as ever. Surveys show that roughly 70 percent of American Jews intend to cast their ballots for President Barack Obama's reelection next month.
ABC anchors discuss highlights from Bill O'Reilly's and Jon Stewart's battle of political wits at George Washington University.
For as long as there have been presidential debates on television -- that is, since 1960 -- they have featured gotcha lines. Some years the debates have consisted of little more.
Pick up any 40-year-old science textbook – on chemistry, biology, geology, physics, astronomy or medicine – and you’ll find a slew of “facts” and theories that have been proven wrong or are no longer the “consensus” view. Climatology is no exception.
"Forward" is a perfectly appropriate slogan for progressives. Progress suggests forward or upward motion. That's why revolutionaries and radicals as well as liberal incrementalists have always embraced some derivation of the forward trope. So ingrained are these directional concepts in our political language, we often forget they are mere geographic metaphors applied -- and often misapplied -- to policy disputes.
Mercifully, the political conventions have ended. The political press will keep buzzing over whether Clint Eastwood's unconventional speech helped or hurt Mitt Romney and whether the snafu over Israel and God in the Democratic platform will do any lasting damage to President Obama. But they are missing the point.