Tweet [1]
George Will is rightly unimpressed by Marco Rubio [2]. A slice:
This promiscuous invocation of national security brings us to Rubio’s enthusiastic support [3] of the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton intervention in Libya, which Rubio faults for having been insufficiently enthusiastic. This 2011 plunge [4] into a tribal society’s civil war, this eight-month assassination attempt using fighter bombers, this supposedly humanitarian imperialism appealed to Secretary of State Clinton and other progressives precisely because it had no discernible connection to any vital U.S. interest. Rubio supported this third adventure in regime change in the Muslim world since 9/11, perhaps on the principle that practice makes perfect.
Today, his sensible complaint is that the Obama administration (like the previous administration regarding Iraq) had no plans for preventing chaos after the Libyan regime was decapitated. His not-at-all sensible implication, however, is that the United States should have buckled down to nation-building there.
Among George Will’s other complaints about Rubio is that Rubio supports corporate welfare for sugar farmers – and then insults our intelligence when attempting to justify his support. Sugar farmers, alas, aren’t the only farmers getting rich on funds stolen from others [5].
Tim Worstall isn’t impressed [8] by the new paper [9] (out of Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration) purporting to find that mandated higher minimum wages have no negative employment effects in the restaurant industry. (I’ve so far only skimmed this paper. I hope to read it carefully soon and, if I have worthwhile things to say about it, say them here at Cafe Hayek.)
Writing in USA Today, Jim Bovard wonders why the many victims of government are ignored [10].
Steve Patterson praises price gougers [11].