I don't see a debate here. Obama may not come right out and say, "I'm a Socialist," but his actions speak for themselves.

Krystina of WA in response to Public Opinion:
Is Obama Socialist?

Michael Jackson was a monumental entertainer and will always be remembered this way ["Michael Jackson Does Not Deserve a Congressional Resolution," usnews.com]. There is no need for our government to pass a congressional resolution in MJ's honor. Since his death, aspects of his life, both negative and positive, have been covered in abundance and fans have been able to honor him in their own ways, so once again, a congressional resolution is completely and utterly unnecessary.

Comment by Franny J. of TN

California has paved the road for medical marijuana users like myself (not in a MJ-friendly state, however), and now they will pave the road to a better economy for a nation on the brink of collapse.

Don Frost of MN in response to Bonnie Erbe:
Legalize Marijuana, Balance Budgets

An honest legislator is one who will never vote for something he does not understand fully.

Dr. John Morgan of AL in response to Peter Roff:
Hoyer Laughs as Healthcare Burns

Everyone keeps griping about how much the cap and trade will cost Americans ["Numbers Adding Up Against Obama's "Cap and Trade" Bill in the Senate," usnews.com]. However, a cap and trade system is capable of making the tax anywhere from $1 to $10,000. The tax is determined by where the "cap" is set. Consequently, the cap and trade system can be tweaked on the fly to balance the cost benefit equation. Obviously a per person cost of $10,000 per year would kill the economy and a $1 cost would not. The cap and trade system just puts a mechanism in place to tax energy. More importantly, where does the tax money go? The government doesn't collect the money. The money is shifted between private companies. Companies that generate new technologies to reduce our dependence on traditional energy sources will benefit whereas phlegmatic companies will suffer. Jobs will be lost at companies that don't innovate and jobs will be created at companies that do innovate. How's that a bad thing?

Comment by Andrew of UT

Palin is not as polished as D.C. regulars who can talk out of both sides of their mouths ["Republicans Perplexed by Palin's Resignation," usnews.com]. What she has is an unvarnished ring of honesty. The continued attacks on her, and her family, are evidence that her attackers fear her. As a non-candidate, she will be free to present her conservative views. She is a mother who loves and protects her children against the David Lettermans and political mud-slingers of this world. She's upbeat, and likable, and that's clear. I hope she never learns to talk out both sides of her mouth.

Comment by John Johannessen of OR

Everyone seems to be focused solely on the current cost of reducing CO2 emissions. There is also a cost associated with doing nothing.

Dennis of AR in response to Peter Roff:
Blocking Cap and Trade in the Senate

Not only has Sarah made it harder on herself to become a viable presidential candidate, she has given her Republican primary opponents much needed ammo.

Mia of WI in response to Robert Schlesinger:
Palin's No Gipper

To the extent that these studies alert potential investors and customers of an upcoming shortage, they serve a good purpose ["America's New Energy Dependency: China's Metals," usnews.com]. The markets are always looking for good investments, and customers of rare earth who don't plan for alternative sources of supply will deservedly be hurt if a shortage occurs. The government can certainly promote investment in research at the university level. But otherwise the notion that the government can plan resource development better than private industry is refuted by the example given. The United States has a much higher standard of living than China precisely because we rely more on the free market than government planning. In fact, a large part of our current troubles are because the government promoted housing and cheap mortgages too much on the theory that that was "good" for us. Any time you favor one special interest group, you hurt the economy at large. The best way for the government to help the rare earth industry is to foster rational tax and environmental policies, not to tell them where and how much to invest.

Comment by James Fox of PA

It is critical to our economic well-being and our personal liberties that we remember all of the tax-and-spend programs--which exceed anything I have ever seen in my lifetime--when the 2010 elections roll around.

Monty Pitts of TN in response to Peter Roff:
VAT's All, Folks