Today on theamericanconservative.com, Eric Margolis explained the real problem with Susan Rice. Meanwhile, Scott Galupo took stock of the back-and-forth over taxes rates and entitlement spending:

Republicans will give in to President Obama — reluctantly, kicking-and-screamingly — on the top tax bracket, but they want substantive entitlement reforms in return, and they want bipartisan, Bowles-ian cover as part of the bargain. The outline of a deficit-reduction plan offered by House Republican leaders yesterday in the form of a letter to the president was vague about revenue: a headline number of $800 billion over 10 years was put on the table, but the letter did not specify which deductions and loopholes are on the chopping block. Because that’s not the point. Obama will get his revenue. … Roughly $1 trillion in new revenue for roughly $1 trillion in spending cuts, including modest structural reforms to Social Security and Medicare, is a realistic target to shoot for, all things considered.

Alan Jacobs examined the rich thought at the root of Roger Scruton’s Case for Environmental Conservatism:

To some readers it will feel that Scruton often wanders far from the most heated environmental debates of our day, but this is intentional on his part. He wants to step back from judgments on particular issues in order to train his readers in usefully conservative thought. … The more distant and abstract the place from which environmental initiatives come, Scruton argues, the less purchase they have on the human beings who are acting in ways that affect our planet.