Less than a decade after the ESA was enacted, it was significantly weakened by an amendment commonly referred to as the Habitat Conservation Plan.  This amendment allows destruction of some habitat of a listed species if the landowner agrees not to destroy other habitat on part of his or her land.  Before the amendment, ALL of the land was protected.  So, the first reform of the ESA should be repeal of this 1982 loophole.

One could argue that the government (all tax payers) should share the pain of protecting the environment. In theory, we could buy up enough habitat from private landowners to protect all endangered species using just a fraction of our military budget. In theory, given the funding, we would have landowners jumping up and down to get the government to protect endangered species by buying their land.

That is not going to happen so the best we can hope for is minimal damage to the existing laws. After all, they are the same kind of government restrictions that keep me from turning my house into a skyscraper. Freedom is a matter of degree.

Of course, there is more wrong with our military expenditures other than the fact that they are a terrible waste, the father of my nephew has just been transported to a German hospital, both legs broken by an Iraqi roadside bomb. This is all starting to look way too familiar.

We can add to the list the following problems:

Refusal to approve non-prescription use of the morning after pill.
The expected dismantling of conservation easement tax incentives in response to it being (predictably) abused by the wealthy.