Byron York describes the ongoing absurdity of campaign finance “reform.”

…after years of campaign-finance reform, we are entering an era in which a donor can give an unlimited amount of money to an unaccountable group without any public disclosure. Before McCain-Feingold, big donors gave fully-disclosed money to the political parties, which, because they represented the entire coalition that made up the Democratic or Republican parties, were far more accountable to the public than the new, outside, groups became. Now, new C4s like protectyourcheck.org do not even have to reveal where they get their money

On the eve of the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Rich Fruzetti has some thoughts on the questions that remain unanswered. As he points out, Islamic terrorism on US soil didn’t begin on September 11, 2001–that’s just when we first noticed it. Perhaps if we’d been more attentive earlier, we could have been spared that event.

On the eve of the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Rich Fruzetti has some thoughts on the questions that remain unanswered. As he points out, Islamic terrorism on US soil didn’t begin on September 11, 2001–that’s just when we first noticed it. Perhaps if we’d been more attentive earlier, we could have been spared that event.

On the eve of the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Rich Fruzetti has some thoughts on the questions that remain unanswered. As he points out, Islamic terrorism on US soil didn’t begin on September 11, 2001–that’s just when we first noticed it. Perhaps if we’d been more attentive earlier, we could have been spared that event.

Mark Steyn has more entertaining and trenchant thoughts on John Bolton’s hip handing.

As for the job Bolton’s up for, what would make Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden put their hands on hips? Child sex rings run from U.N. peacekeeping operations? Sudan sitting on the Human Rights Commission while it licenses mass murder in Darfur? Kofi Annan’s son doing a $30,000-a-year job but somehow having a spare quarter-million dollars to invest in a Swiss soccer club? There are tides in the affairs of men when someone has to put his hands on his hips and toss his curls. And, if the present depraved state of the U.N. isn’t one of them, nothing is.

Ten years later, Fox News isn’t letting the Oklahoma City story die.

The government’s story continues to not hold water. For example, check out this strawman:

Editor’s Note: Watch the FOX News Channel on Sunday at 9 p.m. EDT for “The Oklahoma City Bombing: Unanswered Questions.” And check out FOXNews.com on Monday for a story showing how FBI agents are convinced they got the right men.

No one is claiming that they didn’t get “the right men.” The point isn’t about whether or not McVeigh and Nichols did it, though the defenders of the government action would have us believe that that’s the issue in contention. Everyone agrees that they did (as far as I know). The question is whether or not there were others involved, who remain free. And more seriously, if there were foreign governments involved that the Clinton administration would have found politically inconvenient to finger, particular since, if it restricted its investigation to “angry white guys” it could pin it on those evil right-wing Republicans.

As the article points out, the official story remains quite fishy, and there was a disturbing amount of evidence destroyed. And does this make any sense?

Oklahoma City attorney Michael Johnston said the FBI was not given all the tapes from as many as twenty-five cameras that he says were in and around the Murrah Building.

It’s Alley Oop versus the IRS.

There is a strong case for flat taxes. They reduce compliance (and avoidance) costs. They create a very broad base for taxes that in turn distort the economy less and have a lower dead weight social loss. The Economist says that they may be practical and feasible.

The conventional wisdom from (NYT, April 10) is that alternative minimum taxes (AMT) are bad news. An alternative view is that they are a back door way to get a flat tax. The number of people who pay AMT is expected to grow to $200 billion projected in 2015. This growth is due to three factors: deductions get more generous, maximum marginal rates stay low due to the tax cut, and inflation and growth steadily increase income. While $200 billion less than 5% of the federal budget and less than 1% of the $20 trillion economy (in 2000 constant dollars) projected for 2015, it is still a significant portion of taxpayers paying a flat tax.

If US wants a flat tax, it should do nothing about AMT, it should increase deductions like crazy and reduce the marginal rate of the non-flat tax further. For those worried about the budget deficit, the AMT rate can be raised, or perhaps Medicare and Social Security rationalized.

…with respect to the Sandy Burglar case. What was the Justice Department thinking?

I would have expected this from Janet Reno’s Justice Department, but why from Ashcroft and Gonzales’ Justice Department?