Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). Photo: Wikimedia/Gage Skidmore

• Rep. Paul Ryan makes the case for his 2012 budget. My colleagues at Heritage give it two cheers, and Ross Douthat calls it the “triumph of policy” over politics.
• E.J. Dionne warns that Ryan’s budget would mark the end of progressive government, which is actually a good thing.
• A new report released by the New Organizing Institute both offers insights into e-mail advocacy and explains why careful testing is important.
• Megan McArdle explains that the complexity of accounting practices means  it’s perhaps futile to try to design a corporate tax without “loopholes” of any sort. “A corporate income tax,” she writes, “needs to start by calculating income, and as anyone who has ever looked at a corporate financial statement knows, that’s really complicated.”
• Mark Hemingway points out the facts about who has received campaign donations post–Citizens United. We shouldn’t forget, though, that principle is a better way to make policy than a cui bono analysis.
• Last but not least, Trent Hamm makes the case that your leisure time should not be spent idly. Leisure time, he writes, “can provide all the space you need to take on personal goals and get involved in things you might not otherwise enjoy.”

Newsweek says neoconservatism is alive and kicking.

CAP responds to Citizens United:  “Indeed, with hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate profits at stake every time Congress begins a session, wealthy corporations would be foolish not to spend tens of billions of dollars every election cycle to make sure that their interests are protected.” Of course, it’s the fact that billions are at stake whenever Congress meets that’s the real problem. Ilya Somin, meanwhile, defends free speech rights.

And finally, Conan O’Brien stays classy in his final Tonight Show.

Bad news: America’s economy is less free now than it was a year ago.

The Agitator makes the case that donations in response to disaster don’t constitute fundraising as such.

Daniel Larison asks a good question: are illiberal governments necessarily a threat to free governments?