It's Craptastic!

18) And while we have you, are you aware of any conversations or meetings about leaking the identity of covert CIA Valerie Plame operative to conservative columnist Bob Novak?

Many members of Congress have been pushing for a cut in income taxes, but they've been unsure how to pay for it. Fortunately, I've figured out an answer: with a tax increase. Let's cut income taxes by 10% and finance it with a 50-cent-per-gallon hike in the gasoline tax.
...
If you have ever been stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic, you have probably wished there were fewer cars on the road. A gasoline tax would help to accomplish this by encouraging people to car-pool, take public transportation, or live closer to work.
Another benefit of a rise in the gas tax would be a reduction in the size of vehicles. Whenever a person buys a large car or a sport-utility vehicle, he makes himself safer, but he puts his neighbors at risk. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a person driving a typical car is five times more likely to die if hit by a sport-utility vehicle than if hit by another car. A gas tax is an indirect way of making people pay when their massive vehicles impose risk on others, which in turn makes them take account of this risk when choosing whether to buy some monster urban-assault vehicle or go with a sensible compact.

Environmentalists should also favor a higher gasoline tax. The burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline is widely believed to be the cause of global warming. Experts disagree about how dangerous this threat really is, and most economists who have studied the subject believe global warming would not be nearly the economic catastrophe that some environmentalists claim. But there is no doubt that a tax on gasoline, or on fossil fuels more generally, would help cut such emissions.
...
Cutting income taxes while increasing gasoline taxes would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming--all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer.

Who is Mitch McConnell (besides a hardnosed conservative ideologue and Senate majority whip)?
Why, the husband of labor secretary Elaine Chao, of course.

That must make for some great pillow talk.

OPEC at a meeting today may leave in place production cutbacks planned for next month, six ministers said, a decision that may send oil prices in New York above $40 a barrel to reach levels last seen in the 1990-1991 Gulf War.

OPEC has ``had a stranglehold on this market for a very long time, so to doubt them is not a very smart move,'' said Edward Silliere, vice president of risk management at Energy Merchant LLC in New York. Oil prices may rise to $40 or $42 a barrel later this year as a result of OPEC's plan, he said.
...
Bush's administration has expressed concern of surging energy costs. U.S. regular-grade gasoline last week rose to a record $1.758 a gallon.

CINCINNATI - Treasury Secretary John Snow says outsourcing of American jobs, a hot issue in the presidential campaign, can help make the economy stronger.

``It's part of trade,'' Snow said. ``It's one aspect of trade, and there can't be any doubt about the fact that trade makes the economy stronger.''

``You can outsource a lot of activities and get them done just as well at a lower cost,'' Snow said after being asked about the issue during a stop here Monday.
...
Snow's comments on outsourcing followed remarks on the same subject last month by N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, who stirred controversy by suggesting that shipping U.S. service jobs overseas could be good for the economy.

If you're ever thinking about going down to Crawford, Texas, to protest against Bush, beware.

The police do not take kindly to demonstrators there--or legal observers, for that matter.

And even if you're just wearing an anti-Bush button, you could get arrested.

CRAWFORD, Texas - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice is waging a vigorous defense of her actions in every public forum except one: the Sept. 11 commission where she would be questioned about the government's failure to prevent the terrorist attacks.

Rice declared Sunday night that "nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify" to the commission. But, she added, "there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress."