Everyone complains about corruption, but . . . well . . . it’s not that no one does anything about it. Rather, it’s more that traditional anti-corruption efforts are so ineffective. We can pass laws until the cows come home, but all the laws in the world have done nothing to curb corruption.

Dan Mitchell makes these points and then offers an alternative anti-corruption plan–shrink the size of government. It’s a good plan, and it will most certainly work better than what we have tried thus far in terms of combating corruption. Take a look:

Democrat-Light has another cheerleader and his name is Bruce Bartlett.  Bartlett, former Reagan and Bush 41 Treasury official, writes in the Politico today in a piece titled “Conservatives Must to Adapt to the Welfare State” that:

If conservatives refuse to participate in the debate over how revenues will be raised, then liberals will do it on their own, which will likely give us much higher tax rates and a tax system that is more harmful to growth than necessary to fund the government. Instead of opposing any tax hike, I think it makes more sense for conservatives to figure out how best to raise the additional revenue that will be raised in any event. 

Bartlett is wrong.   Conservatives should not cut and run from the core principles of the conservatism that we need to keep taxes low and fight expansions of the welfare state.  Bartlett makes the classic argument that Republicans need give up principle to be in the room when deals are cut.

Read More →