What I can't get over is Goodell even daring to call anyone else in the world overpaid.

Looks like that "get on my level" advice is catching on.

Short answer, no. More overall muscle mass will help, but it doesn't matter where that mass is.

Precedent doesn't matter in this case; the NFL has the right to fine Lynch, but it's discretionary. This is also different from media rules whereby a certain number of players are required to be available following the game. The "principle" in this case isn't about players talking at all, it's to show that every…

So what's the value in forcing him on stage to mumble "both teams played hard" for 15 minutes? How does that improve the fan experience?

Cross-post to Deadspin's Adequate Man?

I get that point, but roads are heavily subsidized too. There isn't a means of transportation that isn't.

Sure, but the highway fund is national, rather than local. Since there isn't any transit in rural areas anyway, there's no loss. And since those rural areas with less congestion overall (on average) have a higher ratio of cost to revenue raised, there isn't a fairness problem.

Because Paul Ryan. That's the crazy part; a few Republicans were actually on board. If he had some out in favor, it would be a sure thing. Oh well.

The benefit there is that the gas tax revenues are automatically assigned by formula, while a reallocation has to be passed every year. Always best to rely on Congress doing something once, rather than having to do something constantly.

Had a huge impact. Overall spending stayed flat even with the big inclusion of federal funds because the states were broke and pulled back their funding.

The other thing would be to pass an increase and then just peg the tax to inflation. Might as well make it relatively automatic instead of relying on Congress to get their act together every few years.

It's only about 12% that goes to transit, and given how transit keeps people off the roads it seems like that's a net win. Knock out transit funding and there'll still be a huge shortfall, plus more traffic.

So that they would sweat as little as possible. They're actually trying to rest while the sun is facing the wall and heating it up. They can't afford to lose any grip.

Except that those politicians and activists don't actually think that, and certainly don't advocate it. Besides, that's how you write laws; the same bill that institutes the carbon tax can reduce/eliminate payroll taxes. You don't have to do them separately. This is not a difficult thing.

You're describing straw men. If you assume that every smart policy will be used to nefarious ends, then nothing will never sound like a good idea.

Not really. The main proposal is to offset payroll taxes, which are regressive. Plus, poor people suffer form things like asthma as well.

That's the plan of almost every economist. Substitute a carbon tax for payroll taxes.

To follow up on weapons, we're also not paying nearly enough in gas taxes for road maintenance. There's been a shortfall for the past few years, as the tax isn't pegged to inflation (and thus shrinks a little every year) and greater efficiency combined with fewer VMT have lowered the amount of gas we buy.

Why do you think taxing income is a better idea than taxing pollution? I want more income and less pollution. If you read into it, carbon taxes are nearly universally supported by economists. It's how you allow the market to operate most efficiently, without the artificial subsidy of freeloaders pushing costs of…