Do economic prosperity and freedom go hand in hand? Recently Canada’s Fraser Institute ranked all 50 U.S. states in each states level of economic freedom based on government, taxation, regulation, and rule of law. It should come as no surprise that Texas comes in #1.

When asked by National Review’s John Fund the secrets to Texas-sized success, Rick Perry responded:

First, don’t spend all the money. Second, keep the taxes low and under control. Then have regulations that are fair and predictable so business owners know what to expect from one quarter to the next. Finally, reform the legal system so that frivolous lawsuits don’t paralyze employers who are trying to create real wealth.

Liberals will trash-talk the “Texas miracle,” calling it the Texas mirage. But read more here from Mr. Fund on why voters in such blue-states as Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland showed their concern about how far their states have fallen behind the Lone Star State.

America needs to reduce military personnel costs without cutting benefits for active duty men and women. How do we achieve this goal? Dr. Preble’s advice: “reduce the number of active-duty troops.”

In nearly every human endeavor, from farming to manufacturing, technology has reduced the number of people required to accomplish a task

…

However, one stubborn exception remains. Armed-nation building, what the military calls counterinsurgency (COIN), has proved nearly impervious to efficiency gains. When the United States chooses to shuffle the political deck in a weak or failing state, it needs men and women on the ground to do the work.

…

[T]he United States is ill suited to such missions precisely because Americans lack the will patience to sustain them.

…

The public’s instincts are correct. Fixing failed states, or rescuing weak ones, isn’t necessary to preserve U.S. security.

Related audio:

David Boaz, executive vice president of Cato and author of The Libertarian Mind, writes in Time:

In studies that David Kirby and I have published at the Cato Institute on “the libertarian vote,” we have found that only 2 to 4 percent of Americans say that they’re libertarian when asked. But 15 to 20 percent – 30 to 40 million Americans – hold libertarian views on a range of questions. The latest Gallup Governance Survey finds 24 percent of respondents falling into the libertarian quadrant, matching the number of conservatives and liberals and up from 17 percent in 2004 and 23 percent in 2008. And when asked in a Zogby poll if they would define themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian,” fully 44 percent of respondents – 100 million Americans – accept the label. Those voters are not locked into either party, and politicians trying to attract the elusive “swing vote” should take a look at those who lean libertarian.

Related video:

In his autobiography,  Rocks: My Life In and Out of Aerosmith, guitarist Joe Perry discusses how seeing the Yardbirds in the movie Blow-Up in 1966 changed his vision of guitar duos. He tells Technology Tell “When I saw The Yardbirds in the movie “Blow-Up”—I talk about it in the book, I didn’t really know it then, but that was proto-Aerosmith: two guitar players who can pretty much play with that kind of energy and that kind of creativity coming from two different schools—there just weren’t any bands around like that. There were bands with two guitar players, three guitar players, but they never played with that kind of on-the-edge feeling.”

If you watch the video you’ll see some great guitar work by Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck, including a dual-lead part, some chunky riffs by Page on a Telecaster, and some poor but enthusiastic acting by Beck as he destroys a Hofner Senator E1 onstage. When Beck destroys the stodgy hollow-body and then slings a Gibson SG over his shoulder, it’s almost like you can see the very end of the acoustic era happen right before your eyes. The two played “Stroll On,” which was a hard rock version of the Tiny Bradshaw jump-blues classic “Train Kept A-Rollin.” During Page’s Led Zeppelin touring years, the song became a regular show opener. In 1974, Perry and Steven Tyler (who had opened for the Yardbirds in Westport, CT just after Beck left the band) would cover the song using elements of Page’s arrangement and the original title. Perry and fellow Aerosmith guitarist Brad Whitford employed the same two-guitar attack as Beck and Page, and made the song a classic once again. 

Watch the Aerosmith version, along with versions by Tiny Bradshaw and Led Zeppelin by clicking here.

You may recall it was former hedge fund manager Harry Wilson who did the Federal government’s dirty work in turning GM into Government Motors. The big winners were the unions. Now he is representing four hedge funds elbowing his way into GM on behalf of shareholders. Really? Wilson said “General Motors Co. needs to be more transparent with investors and better address ‘shareholder frustration’ building against the company,” reports the WSJ. You can’t make this stuff up. Let’s not forget the public service he did on Rhode Island’s pension advisory board, as I wrote back in 2011:

Harry Wilson (6) worked on President Obama’s auto industry task force under lead advisor and “car czar” Steve Rattner. Mr. Wilson is the person who, according to The ProJo, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the labor leaders. Yet he was a lead dog in the government’s bailout of GM and Chrysler, which gave the United Auto Workers a sweetheart of a deal while sticking taxpayers with the tab.

President Obama and his lead manufacturing adviser Ron Bloom throw around an estimated loss on the bailouts of $14 billion. That figure understates by billons the amounts that were lost. They forget to mention the $12- to $13-billion tax-loss gift, which, under normal bankruptcy laws, only applies to a reorganization. GM wasn’t reorganized; it was sold to a government entity, so the tax loss should not have been allowed. And what’s lost on most government bailout supporters is that the private sector was crowded out from participating in the bailout.

Related video:

Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner writes, “With our national debt now passing the $18 trillion mark, and rising at the rate of $40 to $50 billion per month, it is worth taking a look at where the putative Republican presidential candidates stand on the question.”

From Jeb Bush to Rick Perry, Mr. Tanner lists the potential candidates and explains the clues and hints each has given as to where the national debt stands in their priorities and what they might do about it. Read more here.

Here is a sample:

Jeb Bush: Bush is a prime example of a candidate who has not yet put together specific budget and debt proposals.So far, he has been vague, but generally said the right things, arguing that our current entitlement programs are “unsustainable.” Among the changes he suggests are “raising the retirement age to reflect the life-expectancy increase that’s been dramatic, means-testing some of the entitlement programs over time. We have to reform health care underneath the entitlement system as well, so that the cost curve is dealt with, which means we should move toward catastrophic coverage as the form of insurance.” On the other hand, he has suggested that he would be open to tax hikes in exchange for spending cuts. “If you could bring to me a majority of people to say that we’re going to have $10 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue enhancement — put me in, coach,” Bush told the House Budget Committee in 2012. However, Bush’s tenure as governor raised some concerns. Although he generally earned A’s and B’s on Cato’s fiscal scorecard for governors, he had fallen to a C by the end of his second term. Chris Edwards, Cato’s fiscal analyst, has noted that “Jeb Bush was a prolific tax cutter, but he let spending rise quickly toward the end of his tenure. . . . Jeb was good on taxes, but apparently not so good on spending.”

Rand Paul: Although Paul has attracted more publicity about his libertarian positions on civil liberties and foreign policy, he has actually been among the Senate’s biggest deficit hawks, warning, “I truly believe that the number-one threat to our national security is our debt.” He opposed the Ryan budget, claiming it did not go far enough. Instead, he introduced his own budget proposal, which would have balanced in just five years, and which entailed massive spending cuts. That budget illustrated both the promise and the perils of a Paul candidacy. It was a true fiscally conservative road map toward less spending and smaller government, perhaps the most aggressive such proposal in decades, but it attracted just 18 votes in the Senate. Paul backs a premium-support plan for Medicare and the block-granting of Medicaid to the states. Surprisingly, however, he has not backed personal accounts for Social Security, calling instead for more traditional benefit reductions such as means testing and raising the retirement age.

Related video:

Congress should vote nay. Obama now has asked Congress to give him broad powers to fight ISIS. What is required before Congress takes a vote, is that Obama explain how each of the five elements (below) of the original Weinberger/Powell Doctrine is successfully met. Congress also needs to know what part Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia will play in defeating ISIS. As the president has currently presented his ambiguous war powers resolution, the vote in Congress is a no-brainer.

Five Essential Elements of the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine:

1. Is there a compelling national interest at stake?
2. Have the costs and consequences of intervention been considered?
3. Have we exhausted all available options for resolving the problem, i.e. is force a last resort?
4. Is there a clear and achievable military mission, and therefore a well-defined end state?
5. Is there strong public support – both domestic and international – for the operation?

Pat Buchanan writes, ”It is the Sunni Arabs, the royals on the Arabian Peninsula and the sheiks on the Gulf, to whom this should be a fire bell in the night. For ISIS is out to dethrone these perceived royal puppets of a detested America and to reclaim rightful custody of Mecca and Medina.”

What is it that makes some people in the Middle East volunteer and fight to the death, while others refuse to fight or run away from battle?

For, as the Journal writes, “The Associated Press reported Tuesday that U.S. intelligence officials now say foreign fighters are joining Islamic State ‘in unprecedented numbers,’ including 3,400 from western nations out of 20,000 from around the world.”

Why is this?

The Islamic State has plugged into the most powerful currents of the Middle East. It is anti-American, anti-Zionist, anti-West, Islamic and militantly Islamist. It promises to overthrow the old order of Sykes-Picot, to tear up the artificial borders the West imposed on the Arabs, and to produce a new unity, a new dispensation where the Quran is law and Allah rules and all Sunnis are united in one home whence all infidels — Jews, Shia, Christians — have been driven out. Hateful as it is, ISIS has a vision.

Hezbollah, Iran, Assad, the Houthi rebels, all Shiites, understand this.

They know they are in a fight to the death. And they fight.

But it is the Sunni Arabs, the royals on the Arabian Peninsula and the sheiks on the Gulf, to whom this should be a fire bell in the night.

For ISIS is out to dethrone these perceived royal puppets of a detested America and to reclaim rightful custody of Mecca and Medina.

The Shiites are already in the field. The Sunni are going to have to fight and win this war against ISIS, or lose it all.

Related video: