It looks obvious

Pork-barrel spending is known to be an easy way for politician to distribute public funds to support their donors and political allies. However earmarks aren’t the only way and creative politicians find how to harness the environment as well:

Hillary Clinton’s pattern of earmarking federal funds to benefit her campaign contributors is well-documented, but she also uses environmental regulations to reward — and prod — corporate donors. Particularly, she and her husband have championed environmental regulations that narrowly help Corning Inc., which in turn has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaigns. 

Corning Inc., a manufacturer in upstate New York, famous as a glassmaker, is the lead maker of two technologies that help reduce harmful emissions from diesel trucks. Bill and Hillary Clinton have made these technologies profitable — at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.

Two unrelated, stories from England - the first about yet another attack on the right of people to poison themselves with cigarettes and the idea that people with need government license to smoke. The second story is, wouldn’t it be so sad, is somewhat funnier - concerned with the long waiting time at British hospital’s ER the government regulations set a strict metric on waiting time. Obviously the regulations were not backed up with resources and didn’t provides means to actually comply with the new waiting time restrictions - such details of economics are of no interest. The regulators can be happy, the waiting time metric is being kept, with a small price: 

Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets.

Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour pledge.

 The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 999 calls.

An interesting argument of why Iceland economy is doing very well while it is keeping a very high level of welfare state:

Can’t they both be right? Iceland, much like Denmark, is more or less Hong Kong with a huge welfare state. High personal tax rates and redistributive policies certainly do affect incentives to work, save, etc. And certain state-provided services do tend to crowd out private alternatives. That said, it is possible to have high tax rates, lots of redistribution, and no other policies regulating the operation of the market. Neither Iceland nor Denmark leave their markets that unfettered, but it is simply undeniable that they are extremely wealthy, free-market capitalist countries. Indeed, the relative success of countries like Denmark and Iceland is outstanding evidence that the best way to ensure high levels of welfare spending (in tiny, ethnically homogeneous countries) is to let the capitalism rip. 

Bruce Bartlett, which by the way is going to lecture on March 8th at FEE, argue that the mandating the elections for the US senate by popular vote, instead of by the states, was a major mistake as it weakened the states and it lead for, paradoxically, to less individual liberties:

The 17th amendment was ratified in 1913. It is no coincidence that the sharp rise in the size and power of the federal government starts in this year (the 16th amendment, establishing a federal income tax, ratified the same year, was also important). As George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki has noted, prior to the 17th amendment, senators resisted delegating power to Washington in order to keep it at the state and local level. “As a result, the long term size of the federal government remained fairly stable during the pre-Seventeenth Amendment era,” he wrote. 

Prof. Zywicki also finds little evidence of corruption in the Senate that can be traced to the pre-1913 electoral system. By contrast, there is much evidence that the post-1913 system has been deeply corruptive. As Sen. Miller put it, “Direct elections of Senators … allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.”

And last, but not least, link for today. Again from England, the results of philosophical confusion - the mixing between protecting human rights, tolerance and the roll of government is the base of this horrifying story: 

Up to 17,000 women in Britain are being subjected to "honour" related violence, including murder, every year, according to police chiefs.

And official figures on forced marriages are the tip of the iceberg, says the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). 

It warns that the number of girls falling victim to forced marriages, kidnappings, sexual assaults, beatings and even murder by relatives intent on upholding the "honour" of their family is up to 35 times higher than official figures suggest.