Since I find it linked here and here, I understand that this is mostly a spasm of futilitarian wonkiness, but I still have to marvel at the people's friend Grover Norquist as he opposes the repeal of one of the most indefensible of all government subsidy programs, ethanol. Well, not repeal exactly: he'll let it go if the bad guys will give up the estate tax.
And here we thought Norquist opposed government spending. Turns out Norquist is fine with government spending as long as (a) the money goes to some of the least deserving; and (b) he can cloak his enthusiasm in an unmeetable demand.
The Wichita bureau points out that it doesn't have to be ethanol; Norquist could use the same logic for, say, infant health care. Can we assume that Norquist would concede that we can keep infant health care if we give up the estate tax (rhetorical question, sarcasm)? Or does his compassion extend only to the truly indefensible?