TCS Daily


FREDeralism!

By Chris Edwards - September 13, 2007 12:00 AM

There has been a void in the Republican presidential race. The GOP candidates have spoken about immigration, taxes, social issues, and the war in Iraq. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain have also spoken frequently about Ronald Reagan in order to position themselves as the political heirs to the great president.

The candidates, however, have overlooked a central idea that animated Reagan's view of government. That was federalism, the constitutional principle that the federal government's responsibilities are "few and defined" as James Madison put it.

Reagan believed that the federal government had grown too big and swallowed up too many activities that, in the words of the 10th Amendment, should be left to the states and the people. Education, welfare, food stamps, and other such activities were not properly federal roles in his view. Here is Reagan kicking off his run for the presidency on November 13, 1979:

"The federal government should do only those things specifically called for in the Constitution. All others shall remain with the states or the people ... The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well. There should be a planned, orderly transfer of such functions to states and communities."

When in office, Reagan worked to effect that "orderly transfer." He took aim at the massive system of "grants-in-aid" for the states that had been built up in the 1960s. He managed to cut the number of these subsidy programs from 434 in 1980 to 335 by 1985, and to shrink aid spending by 24 percent relative to the size of the economy. He also killed "revenue sharing," which was a no-strings-attached spigot of federal cash for the states.

Unfortunately, state aid soared after Reagan left office because his successor, George H.W. Bush, had no interest in federalism. The Republican Congress of the mid-1990s briefly revived federalism with its reform of welfare, which was one of the most wasteful state aid programs.

But since the late 1990s, subsidies for the states have risen rapidly including subsidies for health, education, and highways. In a recent study, I calculated that the number of grant-in-aid programs jumped from 653 in 2000 to 814 by 2006.

Sadly, the Bush administration has buried federalism. Consider that Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the Department of Education, and he at least succeeded in roughly freezing the department's budget. The current president, by contrast, has doubled the department's budget and increased federal regulations imposed on the nation's schools.

If elected, would today's GOP candidates be Bush Republicans or Reagan Republicans? Romney, McCain, and Giuliani talk about cutting federal "waste" and "pork." But the problem with the $2.8 trillion federal budget is not $30 billion in pork, it is $2 trillion of spending that violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution as properly the responsibility of the states and the people.

What about presidential candidate Ron Paul? Paul is certainly a strong believer in the 10th Amendment, but he has been mainly occupied by the war in Iraq and hasn't focused his campaign on cutting domestic spending.

That's why I'm pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring. Thompson has been talking and writing about his belief in federalism. In a recent speech, he argued that "centralized government is not the solution to all our problems...this was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007."

Thompson rightly argues that the abandonment of federalism has caused a range of pathologies including a lack of government accountability, the squelching of policy diversity between the states, and the overburdening of federal policymakers with local matters when they should be focusing on national security issues.

Federalism "is a tool to promote freedom" as Thompson puts it. So for the supposed heirs to Ronald Reagan who are running for president, let's hear more about expanding our freedom by cutting the federal government down to constitutional size.

Chris Edwards is director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of "Federal Aid to the States," Cato Institute, May 2007.

Categories:

299 Comments

So I guess Fred will get behind this states-right decision 100 percent
U.S. Court Backs States' Measures to Cut Emissions
By FELICITY BARRINGER
A federal judge in Vermont gave the first legal endorsement
to rules in California, being copied in 13 other states,
that intend to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by
automobiles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/13emissions.html?th&emc=th

States Rights
Did you miss the point? The question here is not IF a state can enact regulations on GH gasses (a joke anyway) but rather can they do it if it impacts other states rights. Then it is not a states rights issue as in the interstate commerce clause.

Example: Fuel prices are higher since states mandate special blends of fuels impacting other states.

There should be one or two blends nationally. States rights only can apply if the meet the criteria of the clauses.

However, nowdays you can get a liberal judge to find anything legal. The Feds crap all over the 10th amendment all the time anyway.

The amazing thing is states defying federal law like immigration laws.

We have a serious challenge here. When nobody recognizes the rule of law then we are approaching total collapse.

Alas, since libs make it up as they go along (as in living documents) who cares? The end always justifies the means?

The only coherent platform - Ron Paul, the Champion of the Constitution
The author writes: "What about presidential candidate Ron Paul? Paul is certainly a strong believer in the 10th Amendment, but he has been mainly occupied by the war in Iraq and hasn't focused his campaign on cutting domestic spending."

Sorry? The author does not seem to have acquainted himself with Ron Paul's messages, at all. Ron Paul intends to get rid of the IRS, numerous federal bureaucracies and makes a convincing case that a return to the Constitution also in matters concerning foreign policy (non-intervention) is going to help tremendously in cutting domestic spending and invigorating a free economy.

Ron Paul's programme is about returning America to a regime of liberty; he is the only candidate who understands freedom, prosperity and peace and presents a coherent agenda to achieve an American renaissance of these pillars of civilization.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/

By contrast:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/freds_flop.htm

It is irrelevant
He cannot win the nomination.
It is moot. He has ZERO chance.



Laggard says: Liberty not to take place since Ron Paul might not win the nomination.
The quintessentially American vision of liberty, prosperity and peace is irrelevant? Because Ron Paul may not be nominated in a few months time? Even if he does not win the nomination, he has put back America on course for the reinstatement of what it is all about. Every day more and more Americans are fighting to take back their country. Irrelevant? A bit lazy, Sir, what? A bit content with passive consumption of politics?

Frederalism / Federalism
Fred's campaign might be very useful if he can include in his Federalism the notion of getting federal policy, laws, and regulations entierly out of our private personal lives - e.g. abortion, "right to die", "Gay" marriage and related private conduct matters and issues. That is, he really needs to tell the "social conservative" theocrats to persuasively take their case to their neighbors and local communities instead of to the federal government (or other layers of government, for that matter).

Fred Thompson
I wish someone would answer one question I have about Fred Thompson - I have written to the Webpage three times and have yet to receive a reply:
I have read that Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations - THAT is not exactly a Federalist organization! CFR is one of the prime movers in the North American Union movement! If this is untrue (and he was never a member) I'd really like to know that. I have liked Fred's stance on a host of issues, but anyone who's a member of CFR is, to me, a traitorous character! CFR is working hard for "one-world governance".....

I'm glad you agree states should have the right set their own air standards
But who is failing to recognize the rule of law?? Maybe you're referring to the recent administration legal efforts to disregard habeas corpus, legalize torture, and allow warrantless electronic communication intercepts.

North American Union
There is no "North American Union" movement. That's simply protectionist paranoia stoked by trucker unions. As for the Council on Foreign Relations being some kind of conspiratorial organization, get a grip -- that kind of thinking is right up there with belief that the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderburgers or the Masons are actually in control of world finance and international laws and such. Black helicopter stuff.

Ron Paul: Pro War versus Anti War
When Ron Paul, at the recent Fox Repub debate, welcomed Fred to the fray because Thompson was also "Pro War" (and Paul isn't), Paul lost me for good. No one I know is Pro War.
Referring to me and others who prefer and respect the President's method of protecting Americans from within the belly of IslamoJihadism was demeaning; it was a cheap shot worthy of Hillary, Dean, Kennedy, OsamaObama, Sheehan, et al.
If he doesn't recognicze the war against IslamoJihadist Terrorists that all Jews and Americans are in, then I don't want him near the White House, Libertarian or not.

Greenhouse Gases
are 100% hype. Yet more Mulie irrelevancies. I think the poor creature suffers from ADHD.

Unfortunately,
Paul is really a Libertarian, and the nation is not nearly ready to put a Libertarian in the Oval Office.

The last guy who really made a serious effort at calling for the abolition of the IRS, the bipartisan Congressman Louis McFadden of the early 1930s, was assassinated for his efforts. I'd love to see that evil institution destroyed, but the Fed will never permit that.

take it up with the national academy of sciences
they disagree with you.

National Defense
National defense IS the prime function of the federal government.

Several administrations and billions of dollars and billions of barrels of oil suggest the middle east IS critical to the national defense of the USA.

Just as Jefferson recognized that piracy cannot be tolerated, neither can dictators who threaten free markets.

Paul can't or won't recognize that simple fact.

Iraqi federalism
If it were not for federalism, the USA would not have existed.
The various colonies considered themselves independent states. Had Hamiton's nationalism persisted, how many colonies would submit to the will of other states?

In spite of the Constitution, the USA has nearly abandoned federalism. Is this why no one has considered this option for Iraq?
The surge is stabilizing local governments. They should have the option to decide how, or if they want to become part of a greater 'state'.

So many conflicts today have their roots in nationalism being imposed.

Cato stumps for Fred? Give me a BREAK!
I wonder if you speak for yourself or Cato. If yourself, why are you so gullible? And why are you stumping for Fred Thompson? If you are out to advance Federalism, you could have simply shown Ron Paul's record. Speaking of records, Fred Thompson a Federalist? Don't be so naive. Fred has sat out of the race, watched the same message working for Ron Paul, and is now trying -- apparently with your help--to parrot that message. Why are you or Cato unaware Fred Thompson's history? Its doubtful you are. Therefore your motives are deeply suspect. Ron Paul is on an exponential growth curve, he will win the nomination and the Presidency. Check your math, forget Gallup. Its inexcusable for Cato or you to write such glowing words about Federalism, without taking notice that Fred has never been a Federalist, never was, never has been, and never will be. Reading this bit of "journalism" starts to make Rand's evil characters seem, nonfictional.

GOP IS DEAD IN THE WATER,why ,My Family ARE REPUBLICANS and
GOP IS DEAD IN THE WATER
I find it amusing when i hear conservatives debate over big goverment intrusive republicans aka thompson/mccain/romney/rudolf/hunter/huckabee all are just hillary clinton on STEROIDS

THE SIMPLE FACT IS THE GOP has only ONE chance to win the next ELECTION his name is RON PAUL,if the gop chooses to ignore RON PAUL,then they will choose to loose the next election.

Democrat or Republican they both want more big intrusive goverment and they both have burned/destroyed the Constitution.

THE GOP IS DEAD IN THE WATER,unless they nominate RON PAUL, Me and my wife are Republicans and i can PROMISE you,We are Voting FOR RON PAUL ONLY any other choice is just big intrusive goverment,the democrats and republicans are all the same,except for RON PAUL

PS you can argue all you want ,im not wasting my vote on 2 big goverment liberal Parties DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS one in the same

The 2nd AMERICAN REVOLUTION has started no guns needed ,just COMMON SENSE
THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION is REAL,and if the GOP ignores it ,i will not shed one tear when the gop loses to hillary they are both the same

The GOP has 0 chance of winning without RON PAUL,you need to get a clue
GOP IS DEAD IN THE WATER
I find it amusing when i hear conservatives debate over big goverment intrusive republicans aka thompson/mccain/romney/rudolf/hunter/huckabee all are just hillary clinton on STEROIDS

THE SIMPLE FACT IS THE GOP has only ONE chance to win the next ELECTION his name is RON PAUL,if the gop chooses to ignore RON PAUL,then they will choose to loose the next election.

Democrat or Republican they both want more big intrusive goverment and they both have burned/destroyed the Constitution.

THE GOP IS DEAD IN THE WATER,unless they nominate RON PAUL, Me and my wife are Republicans and i can PROMISE you,We are Voting FOR RON PAUL ONLY any other choice is just big intrusive goverment,the democrats and republicans are all the same,except for RON PAUL

PS you can argue all you want ,im not wasting my vote on 2 big goverment liberal Parties DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS one in the same

The 2nd AMERICAN REVOLUTION has started no guns needed ,just COMMON SENSE
THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION is REAL,and if the GOP ignores it ,i will not shed one tear when the gop loses to hillary they are both the same

Paul's Platform
-"The quintessentially American vision of liberty, prosperity and peace is irrelevant?"

Ron Paul's "vision of liberty, prosperity and peace" is irrelevent in that is reflects an outdated, isolationist stance which is anachronistic to our modern times.

-"Even if he does not win the nomination, he has put back America on course for the reinstatement of what it is all about."

Ron Paul will not win the nomination. Period. He's a dogmatic libertarian, an ideology which -- although I'm synpathetic to many of its notions -- requries rigors which the citizenry is, sorry to say, simply not up to.

As for "putting back America on course," you're giving him too much credit. His platitudinous rantings are simply that -- and by him not having the slightest chance to win the nomination and implement his notions of, as you say, "liberty, prosperity and peace," his boilerplate will remain confined to the mindset of those who think purely ideologically and ignore the realities as to what's actually achievable in policy.

By talking in such platitudes yourself you give me no reason to take you any more seriously than I take Dr. Paul's campaign.

Off to the next Ron Paul Meetup...
Trey and Speciallyblend - thanks for your interesting comments...can't join the discussion...I am off to the next RON PAUL Meetup, here in my German home town (home to 40k Americans, mainly servicemen), where no other presidential candidate has nearly as many active supporters as does Ron Paul.

The RON PAUL movement makes us adore America. Ron Paul is not just hope for America...Viele Grüße aus Deutschland

Who Funded the Dictators? Saddam/Taliban/Noreiga
The Democrats and Republican Party Stabilized/Supported/Funded the Taliban/Saddam/ etc the list goes on,not to mention overthrowing the irans in 1953 .EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ HISTORY,we have interfered with almost every middle eastern country with our bad foreign policy since WW1 if not earlier.It's not about anti war or pro-war get a life,its about 70 yrs of bad foreign policy and to continue that bad foreign policy isnt the answer both parties are responsible for this and both parties want to continue this bad policy(DEE DEE DEE AWARD) RON PAUL DOES NOT RON PAUL 2008 any other republican will lose ,not a threat,a PROMISE enuff said

a political organization
whose politician managers select the scientists who will be allowed to work on a report in order to ensure the correct result.

according to the latest poll of libertarians
I'm a libertarian, I used to be a member of the party.

If they nominate Paul, the Republicans will be lucky to have a single representative or senator left.

GREAT WORK
Make sure you get those military guys to keep supporting RON PAUL by Donations,I'm making a donation this week,and i have just passed out 2000 flyers this week.We have a strong chance to Win our state for RON PAUL.The 3 Counties i represent, are gonna take over the GOP,the revolution started many yrs ago when i stopped voting for both useless parties.Keep up the great work.

For the most part they were self funded. The Soviet Union funded much of the remainder.
The actions the US took during the cold war were unpleasant, but for the most part they were necessary.

Out here in the real world you rarely have the option of a perfect choice. And you never have the option of pulling up and going home when the perfect choice is not available.

Grownups are able to realize this. Children continue to stick there fingers in their collective ears and threaten to run home if they don't get their way.

working for Paul???
In what alternate universe?

Nothing is working for Paul, that's why he's stuck in low single digits.

Cato's Stumping
If Cato's stumping for Fred (and I'm not sure they are), at least they would be stumping for someone who actually has a chance to gain the Republican nomination. Devotion to someone who may represent your ideological purity (Dr. Paul) but who has absolutely NO chance of gaining the nomination puts Cato in a realistic category, not an ideologically dogmatic (and fantasy-driven) one.

The fanaticism over the prospects of Dr. Paul actually winning the nomination may make his supporters feel good about themselves and their dogmatism, but it ignores real world circumstances and thus gives me no compulsion to take them seriously.

Love Dr. Paul and the libertarian purity he represents all you want, rail against us pitiful "unbelievers" all you want, but you will be sadly disappointed come election time to realize that your dreams of a Libertarian Utopia such that a Paul adminstration will implement have been gutted by reality.

wont hurt my feelings
right now the republicans are the democrats,If the republicans nominate Ron Paul then he will win the general election when anti war people/independents/democrats and republicans and libertarian minded democrats and libertrian minded republicans and libertarians vote for RON PAUL he will win,if the GOP doesnt nominate Ron Paul then they will lose as well,its only a win win for the libertarians and independents and conservatives if RON PAUL wins the nomination.The democratic party and republicans are one in the same ,if we dont vote for change,then both parties will crush the constitution and continue Big intrusive Goverment.You lose with any vote but RON PAUL thats the point,there is no wasted vote,only a vote for change.

A non-poliitcal organization chartered by abraham lincolhn to provide non-partisan scientiific advic
led by outstanding scientitsts: election to the national academy is one of highest honors a scientist can receive.

OK, you have a press release from the Hudson Insititute
for a non-scientists interpretation of findings, that the scientists who did the research disagree with. Sure.

Spot-On
"Out here in the real world you rarely have the option of a perfect choice. And you never have the option of pulling up and going home when the perfect choice is not available.

Grownups are able to realize this. Children continue to stick there fingers in their collective ears and threaten to run home if they don't get their way."

Otherwise known as the "Mommy, Make Them Stop" mentality.

WRONG
The congressional records and Cia show we created the Taliban in a proxy war with russia and we funded them with weapons and money. We supported saddam with guns and money check the records and the committees,its all there in the history books. they funded themsleves along with our help and support.the Taliban only existed becasue we trained them/funded them and supplied them with stinger missiles and much more. We also overthrew the iranian gov in 1953 with the cia funded by our 2 parties.Its in the records

your spot on wrong
maybe you need to read the cia and congressional records we funded the taliban and trained them to fight proxy war with russia and we gave them weapons like stinger missiles,the point is bad foreign policy doesnt change over 70 yrs by continuing the same bad foreign policy. i dont think my military family AIR FORCE Are running anywhere,its bad foreign policy by both parties,not the american people,

Policy
"we funded the taliban and trained them to fight proxy war with russia and we gave them weapons"

Yes, and I would support that policy again, just as I would support our having provided military trucks to Russia during W.W.II. It's called Realpolitik -- the notion that the enemy of my enemy can be my friend under circumstances that are less than ideal. Sometimes alliances must be struck with unsavory characters in order to defeat the MORE unsavory characters. It's how the world works, as opposed to some ridiculous, frilly notion that we can all be loving companions to each other if we simply beat our swords into plowshares -- that's a childlike mentality.

Pro War Thompson
Thompson favors continuing the war. Thus he's pro war. You say no one is pro war. Then how did the US get into this mess and why does it continue if no one is pro war?

Further - pretend Bush is protecting Americans all you want, the reality is the Bush Administration used lies to justify invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, that had no weapons of mass distruction, that posed no threat to the US, that had seen 500,000 of its weakest citizens (children and elderly) die from US sanctions that prevented access to needed medications and clean water, that had done the US's bidding in attacking Iran (thereby losing tens if not hundreds of thousands more people). And, as to Iran, the US government has been intervening there over 50 years, toppling an elected government, imposing the Shah and assisting in the training of his secret police who killed thousands of Iranians. These IslamoJihadist terrorists you fear so much are simply a reaction to US imperialism. The US, with a military might that dwarfs that of other countries has military bases in 130 countries, acts as though every square inch of the globe is crucial to US security interests, props up dictators thereby earning the hatred of the world's people.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate shining a light for all to see the corrupt empire the US has become. He is the only one I'd be happy to see near the White House.

anything led by politicians is a political organization
...

it's a press release that details 500 hundred scientists who disagree with you
...

BS on stilts
we did not fund the taliban.
The taliban were a small part of the groups that we helped against the soviets.

Do you think that defeating the soviets in Afghanistan was a mistake?

That defeat was a major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Do you think that it was a mistake to oppose Soviet expansionism?

those records do no such thing
you really need to read the records themselves, not carefully selected excerpts.

Mass Murder
The US government is currently the greatest threat to world peace. It is an aggressor nation that has invaded an Iraq that posed no danger to the country or people of the US. Its war on the Iraqi's has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Now the major candidates for both Republicans and Democrats propose "preemptive" nuking of Iran, certain to kill innocents by the untold thousands there as well. The leaders of the Bush Administration as well as its aiders and abettors in both major parties are war criminals and should be treated no less harshly than were the Nazi's at Nuremburg.
Your oh so smug endorsement of "Realpolitik" is a thin veneer trying to cover the reality of mass murder. How adult of you.

AND…????
So what? We more accurately created Al Quieda, through Osama and his people, they created (or helped to bring to power) the Taliban. Do you understand the Cold War at all?? The point was to stop the spread of communism wherever possible, while avoiding an all-out war that would probably include nuclear weapons. Russia and China had as their policy to spread communism and, eventually, wipe out capitalism. this battle raged for 40 years, beginning with the war in Korea and the Berlin Airlift and continuing through many little economic and military adventures. The biggies were Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Cuba. There were many others in Indo-china, Africa and South and Central America as well as the middle-east. The U.S. Policy in Afghanistan during the 80s was the right one. The reason we became enemies of the Taliban and Bin Laden was that we didn't like their way of doing business and quit dealing with them; would you rather we just continued to back them?

We sold arms to both sides (to some extent) in the Iran-Iraq war, so? Yeah, we openly backed Iraq, again so what? We really didn't want the Russians or Chinese to gain too much influence in the middle-east and the Iranians had pretty much burned any chance at a political compromise with the U.S. durring the embassy hostage mess; so which side are we going to support?? Ya think!!

You are going to bring up Iran in '53 huh?? Better find out why we helped the Shah come to power before you automatically consider it a bad deal.

You want to talk about bad American policy, look at the turn of the 20th century and the things the U.S. government did (or allowed U.S. companies to do) in South and Central America. From Bolivia to Paraguay to Columbia to… well, the whole damn region.

Stinkhammer's POLICY post is pretty right on, read it.

You are lying again: no, it does not
It's a press release that cherry picks research to try to find some obsrvations that contradict (in the opinion of an agricultural economist) simple-minded theories of human-caused global warming. To a first approximatin none scientists themselves who did the research don't dispute the theory, and none were asked about it. Stop your lying.

Except the NAS and other organizations are led by scientists, not politicians.
But go ahead and post names of non-scientists who are officers if you have different information. If you can't document what you say, admit you were wrong.

Not Quite
"Your oh so smug endorsement of "Realpolitik" is a thin veneer trying to cover the reality of mass murder. How adult of you."

Nothing "smug" about endorsing reality (which doesn't condone any "mass murder," especially that which you cite and hasn't actually taken place). And much more "adult" than embracing an indeological stance ensconced by immature thinking and pie-in-the-sky Utopian fantasy.

As for the rest of your post, it is nothing more than boilerplate left-wing pablum which has been debunked in far better and more credible venues than mere online discussion forums.

As for smugness, I can't think of any more demonstrable than your ad hominem "very adult of you" comment. You don't impress me with your non-thinking and oft-regurgitated US-bashing. It's very stale and not worthy of further address.

USA a threat ...
to all totalitarian regimes.

As much the French disagree with the USA, they probably don't have their nuclear weapons pointed at us like Russia, China and DPRK (if they have any left) and Iran (when they can get the nuke tips installed.)

Is it a coincidence most of the real enemies of the USA are totalitarian and socialist? And those that agree with our enemies are totalitarian and socialist?

Ideology v. reality
Leaders look to ideology to set their ultimate goals but keep both eyes on reality lest it mug them. Without a healthy, balanced mix of both, like President Reagan had, leaders eventually become either despots or crooks.

Despots get lots of people killed while crooks let them live because it's difficult to shake down a corpse - after its estate has paid the death tax, that is.

I see a despotic streak in Ron Paul a mile wide, which is why I'd rather vote for one of the crooks he's running against, keeping in mind that I'd better keep my Swiss bank account open.

maybe
but if Ron Paul doesnt win then i know for sure the GOP will be dead in the water period,good luck winning with pro-war big intrusive goverment,the republican party will lose without Ron Paul and his support and i cannot support the republican party who is just as bad as the democrats enuff said so i guess the gop is truly dead in the water each way,i wont cry a tear,my vote wont go to either intrusive big goverment,americans are over both intrusive big goverment parties(dems and rep are both the same,look at your paycheck and bendover,i hope you enjoy getting screwed by both,either way your getting screwed,my vote is going to RON PAUL PERIOD,you can blame me for the gop after they lose with war mongering candidates

Enjoy Hillary then
thats what your gonna get if you ignore Ron Pauls message,the fact is Ron PAULS MESSAGE GOES BEYOND THE WAR THE REST OF HIS STANCES ARE DEAD ON,while the rest of the big goverment loving republicans are just hillary on steroids,i hope you enjoy big goverment neither party is small goverment oriented excpet RON PAUL,george bush has spent more money then all the presidents combined,so enjoy getting raped by both parties since you seem to love it;)

NAS!
Go ahead LeMule. Holler your battle cry. We have heard it all before.

No consensus. Consensus is meaningless. Doctored data. No peer-review. Political agendas. But hey, did you know that Abe Lincoln (yes, Honest Abe himself!) created the NAS(!)?

Case closed. Just like LeMule's mind.

For those who actually think beyond what you are told, go research who is actually on the NAS panel that created the NAS(!) position paper. Find one who did not have a career invested in proving AGW before they were on the panel. Good luck.

I now return you to the LeMule AGW scam.

BTW: Isn't this article about Federalism? I find it amazing that LeMule can turn any discourse into a AGW diatribe. Most likely because it is something he, quite humorously, believes he understands.

TCS Daily Archives