Colorado Well Represented Among Top Conservative Columnists

by Ben DeGrow | 8:40 am, March 16, 2009

It seems Colorado’s own David Harsanyi is getting some national attention for his column-writing talents. Witness “The 30 Best Conservative Columnists for 2009″ list compiled by John Hawkins of Right Wing News. David breaks in at number 22.
Yes, David is a native New Yorker and not really from Colorado. (Then again, few of us really [...]

Gary Wolfram on Mark-to-Market Accounting

by Rossputin | 2:05 am, March 16, 2009

Gary Wolfram, a professor at Hillsdale College, has written another very good article about why mark-to-market accounting rules should be suspended and how they are making our nation’s financial situation worse.

It may seem like an arcane discussion, but for anyone who’s paying close attention to the intersection of politics and economics these days, it’s very important.

See “Accounting Rules at Heart of Bank Crisis”, Gary Wolfram, Human Events, 3/13/09
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31049

Colorado HB 1256 would lower insurance costs

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, March 16, 2009

The Denver Business Journal published the following letter of mine in its March 6 edition:
Colorado House Bill 1256 would bring affordable insurance to thousands of Coloradans by allowing them to buy less expensive policies available in other states (Health Care, Feb. 19).  Consider the average annual premium costs for non-group policies.  According to America’s Health [...]

The Missouri Militia, Which Ones We Talkin’ About?

by ToxicHypoxic | 12:00 am, March 16, 2009

From a rather early age I’ve taken an interest in the militia. However, in recent years the term has taken on a rather odious meaning. But it was not always that way. In our nation’s founding documents, the militia is mentioned prominently. Consider the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights. The militia is front [...]

Hugo Chavez? Say It Ain’t So, Magglio

by Ben DeGrow | 8:34 pm, March 15, 2009

A mildly disturbing story that makes me wish sometimes we could keep the world of sports / entertainment separate from the larger political world. From an ESPN article about my favorite baseball team’s All-Star right fielder and a loathsome, repressive dictator:

President Hugo Chavez came to the defense of Magglio Ordonez on Sunday, slamming Venezuelan baseball [...]

Obama, Holder shift on Guantanamo detainee policy incoherent, inconsistent, and dangerous

by Captain Arapahoe | 8:20 pm, March 15, 2009

In a dramatic break with longstanding U.S. government policy and well-established interpretations of the laws of war, the Obama administration (Holder Justice Department) announced Friday afternoon (a time when government officials announce policy changes they hope will be ignored or buried by the news media) that it will abandon the use of the term “enemy [...]

Just say no to higher taxes for Denver light rail (FasTracks)

by Rossputin | 1:36 am, March 15, 2009

This is a letter to the editor of the Denver Post responding to their article of March 12, 2009 entitled “Doubling FasTracks sales tax gets nod“.

It’s hard not to laugh at RTD Spokesman Scott Reed’s claim that “there was no upside for RTD to over-estimate finances” during the initial proposal for FasTracks and the sales tax that was supposed to fund it. Of course there was upside for RTD, namely the fact that once tens of millions of dollars have been poured into the lightrail money-pit after getting approval for the project by fooling the public into thinking the 0.4% sales tax tack-on would cover the cost, RTD can then say “we have to raise more money or the first money will just have been wasted.”

It’s time to just say no to such transparently deceitful ploys. Nobody but RTD and its allies could possibly have believed their incredibly rosy economic assumptions, particularly a constant economic growth rate of around 6%. Jon Caldara was right to call that assumption fraudulent, and now we’re already $2.2 billion short with a recession that doesn’t seem near to ending.

So, typically for government, they’re behind schedule, over-budget, and want more of our money just as Colorado’s unemployment rate reaches its highest level since 1988. I have two words for RTD: “Forget it.” I maybe have been born at night, Mr. Reed, but not last night.

Glenn Beck: We Surround Them

by zombiehunter | 4:27 pm, March 14, 2009

Many of you saw Glenn Beck announce his newest project We Surround Them. Beck’s been getting made fun of a few other television personalities like Stephen Colbert and Shep Smith because he sometimes gets pretty emotional. Glenn, I’ve got no problem with you getting emotional – especially when it’s because you love our country. Glenn [...]

“We’re all mad here.” – The Cheshire Cat

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 7:56 am, March 14, 2009

The influential blog Real Clear Politics declares “Republican Earmarks Taint Criticism.”

As an example, RealClearPolitics points to Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. On the recent budget and its earmarks, McConnell said:

“In the midst of a serious economic downturn, the Senate had a chance to show it could impose the same kind of restraint on itself that millions of Americans are being forced to impose on themselves at the moment,” McConnell said from the Senate floor.

Following the vote, McConnell issued a press release that simultaneously announced his opposition to what he said was an oversized bill and touted the millions of dollars he personally brought home to Kentucky.

This Alice In Wonderland, Orwellian absurdity is our fault. It aint’ THEIR fault. It’s OUR fault.

They do it because we not only let them do it, we demand they do it. If they don’t bring it home, we vote for someone that will.

The only way to change politicians is to change us.

We vote for the status quo, we get the status quo.

That really should not be a shock to anyone.

What some have not considered, however, is that voting for members of the two-party duopoly that perpetuates this nonsense is indeed a vote for the status quo.

Will either the national or the Kentucky GOP take McConnell to the woodshed for his nonsense? Of course not. If they do, the Democrats will use the criticism against him in the next election.

If the Democrats get that seat, then Democratic causes and donors will get the pork. Not the Republican causes and donors that McConnell just paid off.

And make no mistake. The two party duopoly has only one overriding goal. That goal is retaining power.

It is not smaller government. It is not liberty. It is not free markets. It is not your individual well-being.

It is winning. It is controlling the pork.

Helping and supporting the two party duopoly is complicity in our own robbery. (I think John Galt said substantially the same thing).

And until we start doing something about it, until we fundamentally change the way we approach our passive acceptance of the two party duopoly, we can all just keep writing checks to Mitch McConnell’s favorite Kentucky causes.

Brian Wesbury: “Rosy Scenario” Hides Irresponsible Spending

by Rossputin | 12:43 am, March 14, 2009

Brian Wesbury shreds the lies behind Obama’s budget and deficit predictions:

“Rosy Scenario” Hides Irresponsible Spending
To view PDF version of this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury – Chief Economist, FirstTrust Advisors
Robert Stein, CFA – Senior Economist, First Trust Advisors
Date: 3/9/2009

In 2007, the federal budget deficit was $162 billion (or, 1.2% of GDP). For 2009, the budget deficit is projected to be eleven times larger: $1.752 trillion. This World War II-like deficit (12.3% of GDP), is not all on President Obama. Much of it is due to policies put in place by President Bush, Hank Paulson, and last year’s Congress. President Obama’s “stimulus” bill will certainly lift the deficit, but, to be fair, it is not the predominate force behind this year’s large fiscal hole.

Nonetheless, contrary to the spin of big government-types, these deficits are not just temporary. In fact, the Obama Administration uses every trick in the book to convert an understandable and potentially temporary budget lapse this year into a structural lack of fiscal responsibility.

Despite the rosiest economic projections we have possibly ever seen, and one of the largest tax hikes in history, President Obama’s budget fails to achieve balance at anytime in the next decade. The smallest deficit (at least as far as the eye can see) will be $533 billion in 2013. This is amazing, especially when the economic growth forecast is considered. Team Obama suggests that real GDP will grow significantly faster in the years ahead than it has in the past.

To top it off, that $533 billion deficit in 2013 assumes we have largely withdrawn our military from Iraq. In other words, if we look at just domestic spending, the budget deficit is growing even faster.

It is impossible to blame tax cuts for this situation. By 2013, the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 would no longer be in place. In the Obama budget, tax revenue is expected to be 19% of GDP in 2013 – a higher share of GDP than in 2007. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist at this point to understand that every dime of the increase in the deficit between 2007 and 2013 is due to higher spending, not excessively low taxes on the rich.

And one thing to remember about all of these numbers is that they are based on a very “rosy” economic scenario. If the economy falls short of the optimistic assumptions, the deficit will be substantially larger than projected.

The forecast is rosy from the get go. The budget forecasters assumed that the economy would grow at a 3% annual rate starting in April, and that real GDP would fall just 1.2% in 2009, from 2008. Then, from 2010 through 2013, the administration assumes that real GDP will grow at a 4.0% annual rate. To put this in perspective, it is twice as fast as the economy’s 2.0% annual rate of growth between 2004 and 2008. This is not impossible, but the only other periods that came close to this 4% growth rate for such a prolonged period of time were in the late-1990s and mid-1980s. Forgive us for pointing this out, but both of these periods followed major shifts toward freer markets, and tax cuts, not bigger government and tax hikes.

There is no period in US history where tax rates and the size of government both increased, and yet real GDP growth accelerated as sharply as the Obama team forecasts.

If real GDP grows 1% slower on an annual basis, federal spending would be 23% of GDP in 2013, not 22%. The last time government spending was anywhere near this level, was in 1982-83, in the wake of the worst recession in post-war history with unemployment at 9.7%. But by 2013, according to the Obama forecast, the US will be in the fourth year of recovery, with an unemployment rate at 5.2%.

In other words, it is the Obama team’s shift to an expanded government role in the economy and society that is boosting spending, not just spending to stimulate the economy. Deficits will remain extremely large because spending is so much above any historical ability of the economy to pay for it. And, the more taxes are lifted to pay for it, the slower the economy will grow and the less likely any economic data even remotely resembling the Obama Administration’s rosy scenario will come to pass.

BeerBottleExplosions

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 10:48 pm, March 13, 2009

The Education Empire (Quietly) Strikes Back at SB 57 School Transparency

by Ben DeGrow | 12:44 pm, March 13, 2009

Senate Bill 57, the school financial transparency bill, has defied anyone’s expectation and made it through one-half of the legislature. From the senate, it’s now on to the house.
Apparently, but not too surprisingly, the lobbyists for the education establishment are looking for a way to kill the bill without looking like they oppose transparency. The [...]

Friday Seriously Funny

by Mr. Bob | 9:54 am, March 13, 2009

#tcot #gop #hhrs #redco -Serious, but funny Friday video. I know people who have worked at GITMO and been stationed there, and were involved in interrogations over their entire deployment. The cries of “torture” from the left are propaganda…PERIOD. No one I know has ever even seen anything like it nor even heard of it. If someone did step over the line and got too rough with a murdering terrorist, it was definitely an isolated incident and not a matter of policy.

I know I am just one person testifying here, there could be others that are more in the know, but this is a pattern. A pattern of our enemies to discredit our position in the world and a pattern by the Democrat leadership to gain political power.

Our soldiers, sailors and marines are not trained to do anything like torture, and it is not sanctioned, you will lose your job and would be put up on charges if you did. We are the good guys. Do we ever make our enemies uncomfortable, go without sleep for a while, make them lean against the wall rather than use a chair, answer questions when they don’t want to?…yes when necessary. Does a CIA agent ever make someone really uncomfortable if we know they have information that can save lives? Probably, but it is not the norm, it is not a policy…period, and as I said, no one i know ever even heard of anything like this.

Because of 9-11, President Bush made allowances for rougher treatment if necessary, things like “water boarding” to be allowed. I’ve never heard of it being done unless it is to one of our soldiers going through training. I know from the news that one of the masterminds behind 9.11 was waterboarded, and as a result, thousands more lives may have been saved. Because that took place, don’t fall prey to the lies that this is something American servicemen do regularly, it is not.

I have heard this statement from many interrogators; Being respectful and nice to terrorists yields the best results…they aren’t used to that. I believe waterboarding is in fact torture, and I don’t condone it and think it should not be done, but I also look at it through the lens of an American servicemen who has friends who are Navy SEALS….and they’ve been waterboarded. So I don’t get too upset when one terrorist every 10 years gets treated like a SEAL. My view changed on 9.11, as did many Americans, but mine didn’t change back like apparently so many others did.

Since about 1952 the enemies of the US know that to defeat us, they infiltrate our country, our media with their lies and make it sound like it is coming from here (propaganda). With a willing media and for the sake of power, a complicit political party they continue to do just that successfully. Proof of that is that most people think (including our current President) that torture takes place at GITMO. It is a lie fashioned by the enemies of the west from outside and inside our borders, in order to make the US to appear as bad as anyone else..including the terrorists, which as Steven points out is utterly ridiculous.

Steven mentions this in his video which is important; US Service Members who undergo Survival, Evasion, And Resistance (SEAR) training get waterboarded. It is not fun for our guys or for the terrorist murderers but as I said, this is NOT the norm, it is the extreme exception and is never taken lightly. We are the good guys. This video is funny because Steven is funny, but this is a serious subject.

“Congressman who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged” Abraham Lincoln

Electoral College Redux: HB 1299 Seeks To Overturn Founding Fathers, Negate Colorado’s Votes

by elpresidente | 1:00 am, March 13, 2009

Or, how to achieve a national popular vote through the back door.

Amy Oliver leads the way:

The Electoral College stands as another example of the political brilliance of our Founding Fathers. It demonstrates their commitment to the protection of minority rights, and the diverse interests of the entire nation–not just the biggest cities or states.

So why hasn’t the Electoral College been changed in over 200 years? The answer is simple: because the system works. Just because some politicians still are bitter about the outcome of the 2000 elections doesn’t mean that the system should be changed, not in Colorado, nor California, nor New York, nor Florida. Without the Electoral College, all a candidate has to do is win a plurality of the popular vote, even if that plurality comes mainly from a handful of mega-cities on the coasts.

Ross Kaminsky adds to the case against this disenfranchising fraud:

The genius of our Founders was specifically NOT to implement the type of mechanism for presidential selection that HB 1299 proposes. We are, for good reasons, NOT a Democracy but instead a Constitutional Republic. The bill is an attack on probably the most fundamental aspect of our government, or at least on the most fundamental aspect of the executive branch as conceived by Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson.

The current electoral college system is intended to protect the rights of minorities, and to recognize that a free society must be free of a tyranny of the majority. The Founders wrote about this frequently, including in at least two of the Federalist Papers. It is essential to our Republic and it is shameful to see a politician toy with it.

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel calls it “electoral nonsense” and “illogical.” The Loveland Reporter Herald condemns the bill in a similar fashion.

HB 1299 means the permanent session of Colorado’s political voice to the will of voters in larger states on the coasts, rendering this part of the United States permanent flyover country when it comes to the state-by-state election of the President. Swing states would become meaningless, as the get-out-the-vote campaigns focused exclusively in the highly condensed population centers to win a plurality/majority of the votes and ensure that a national popular election was enforced through the gerrymandered and worthless Electoral College. In other words, the only “swing” states would be the politically suicidal ones who signed to this atrocious piece of populist legislation.

Amendment 36 was handily defeated in 2004, despite a well-funded campaign by out-of-state interests.

If the Democrats (or anyone else who would sponsor such a ridiculous bill) were truly interested in thwarting the Founding Fathers by eliminating the Electoral College, why not simply call for a Constitutional Amendment calling for a popular vote to elect the President instead of this disingenuous legislation? Why cede the ability of this state to determine its own future in a meaningful and balanced way against 49 other states?

The Founding Fathers, as the above authors mentioned, wanted to create a neutral and more fair playing field when it came to choosing the candidate for the highest office in the land. The Electoral College sought to balance the interests of the minority against the majority, the rural interests against the urban, and smaller states against the bigger, more populous ones.

If Colorado is to have an objectively relevant say in the outcome in 2012 and every subsequent presidential election thereafter, HB 1299 and its insidious intentions must be defeated soundly.

Again.

Letter to Rep. Claire Levy: Oppose HB 2199; protect our Republic

by Rossputin | 12:21 am, March 13, 2009

[Claire Levy is my representative in the Colorado House of Representatives. I urge all of you to contact your representatives and tell them you oppose HB 1299. You can find contact info HERE.]

Dear Representative Levy,

I urge you to oppose House Bill 1299 which would eliminate the relevance of small states like Colorado in presidential elections.

[Before I continue, let me say that I do not oppose this because it’s a Democratic proposal. I oppose it for much more basic reasons, as I describe below, and would do so just as aggressively if the measure were brought by Republicans. Although I am a registered Republican, I have not voted for a Republican for President in 20 years.]

HB 2199 is not just anti-American, it’s stupid.

As our fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, said, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The genius of our Founders was specifically NOT to implement the type of mechanism for presidential selection that HB 1299 proposes. We are, for good reasons, NOT a Democracy but instead a Constitutional Republic. The bill is an attack on probably the most fundamental aspect of our government, or at least on the most fundamental aspect of the executive branch as conceived by Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson.

The current electoral college system is intended to protect the rights of minorities, and to recognize that a free society must be free of a tyranny of the majority. The Founders wrote about this frequently, including in at least two of the Federalist Papers. It is essential to our Republic and it is shameful to see a politician toy with it.

Beyond it being anti-American, HB 1299 is bad politics. It seems to be the spawn of people who still believe Al Gore won the election in 2000. No matter what one thinks of that, the purpose of this bill and a few similar measures around the country, is to try to make sure that small-to-medium states (usually “purple” or “red” in character) will always give their electoral votes to the Democrat. This assumes, however, that the majority of the national popular vote will always go for the Democrat. Just a few years ago, the Republicans were stupidly talking about building a “permanent majority.” No doubt many Democrats have the same pipe dream now. But times change, people change, political parties change…indeed, nothing is certain except that we will not be able to accurately predict the political future any more than we can predict the weather 2 or 4 or 50 years from now. It is possible that this measure could backfire on its Democratic supporters. But that’s not really the point. This isn’t about whether it works or not. It’s about whether it’s right or wrong. And it is very, very wrong.

What would the effect of the bill be? It would be that presidents and presidential candidates could essentially ignore, in both their campaigning and, more importantly, in how they govern, every state that signs on to a compact like this.

And while I generally oppose earmarks and the use of the federal government to redirect money to states, it is a fact of life for now. Some states subsidize other states. While there is some correlation to rich states subsidizing poor states, in 2005 (the last year for which I can find data) Colorado was 41st on the list of the 50 states, recovering 81 cents out of every dollar that we send into the giant sucking sound that is the Washington Beltway. (I think being on the top or the bottom of that list is bad…to the extent that we must have our current system, the most ethical position to be in is as close to $1 received for $1 paid in as possible.) In any case, Colorado is already having its wealth siphoned off to other states and HB1299 would only make it more likely for the federal government to treat us more like a source of funds than a state full of real citizens.

Effectively, under HB 1299 a few large states would be casting their votes for us. Voters in small to medium states, including Colorado, will be effectively disenfranchised. There would be even less reason to go to the polls than there is now, and that among a population that hasn’t had 60% voter turnout in 40 years.

Maybe that’s one reason that every newspaper in which I can find an editorial on the subject has strongly opposed it with, for example, the Grand Junction Sentinel calling it “Electoral Nonsense.”

It is hard not to think of sponsors and supporters of HB 1299 as Manchurian Candidates for political activists from outside Colorado who do not have Colorado’s interests at heart or in mind. Indeed, in 2004, a campaign with a similar goal as HB 1299 (Amendment 36, which would have split the state’s electoral votes proportionately to the vote each party received at the ballot box) was funded by a liberal group from California, to a large degree by Jorge Klor de Alva, a Brazillian (reportedly a millionaire) who lives part-time in California, teaches at Berkeley (where else would he teach, after all?) and whose political contributions go only to liberal Democrats…including Al Gore. It was reported that de Alva contributed almost $700,000 to the campaign for Amendment 36 which nevertheless failed by nearly a 2:1 ratio on election day, maybe in small part because of Ken Salazar’s opposition to it which he stated on Meet the Press.

In part because of how easy it is to tie this measure to “foreign” interests, I believe that anyone who supports HB2199 will give powerful ammunition to political candidates considering challenging them in either a general or primary election.

In short, Representative Levy, HB 2199 is anti-American, anti-Colorado, and stupid on many political levels. I urge you to oppose this misguided bill and to encourage your colleagues to do the same.

Most sincerely,
Ross G. Kaminsky
Nederland, Colorado

For your further reference:
An interesting article about the difference between Democracy and Republic, with mention of the Electoral College, can be found here:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-pursuit-of-happiness-democracy-or-republic/
And a serious discussion of the Electoral College, including history and arguments for and against it is here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm15.cfm

Financial Times: The Future of Capitalism

by Rossputin | 12:05 am, March 13, 2009

This page of the Financial Times’ web site looks like it could be quite interesting on a continuing basis…probably worth a bookmark and a regular look:

http://www.ft.com/indepth/capitalism-future

Churchill trial update

by John Martin | 11:44 pm, March 12, 2009

Got in a little late to the Churchill trial this morning, while Chutch attorney David Lane was questioning Deward Walker, an associate professor of anthropology at CU (where he also teaches in the ethnic studies department). Walker chaired the committee that reviewed Ward’s work prior to his receiving tenure in (I think) 1996. Lane essentially [...]

Is Dennis Apuan Still Boulder’s Own Representative in El Paso County?

by Ben DeGrow | 10:10 pm, March 12, 2009

Face The State follows up on a Complete Colorado lead about Democrat State Representative Dennis Apuan. He is the lead sponsor of a resolution honoring fallen soldiers (PDF), but he also has been arrested as an anti-war protester.
Jeff Crank, former Republican Congressional candidate and current Colorado Springs radio host, wants to know why Apuan is [...]

Rob Witwer Tells National Audience about Colorado’s Blue “Rocky Ride”

by Ben DeGrow | 9:53 pm, March 12, 2009

Some of you may remember many months back when Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard gave national coverage to “The Colorado Model”. Certainly a fine piece in its own right, but you’ll find an even more detailed and insightful piece along the same lines in the new issue of National Review, written by my friend [...]

Beer Protectionism Protest – With Smashing Bottles!

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 5:40 pm, March 12, 2009

3/13 Beer Smash to Protest Grocery Limits

by Justin Longo | 4:41 pm, March 12, 2009

MEDIA CONFERENCE 3/13: Contact Ari Armstrong [...] ISSUE: Allow Grocery Sales of Real Beer, End Protectionism PHOTO OPPORTUNITY: Smashing Beer Bottles to protest beer protectionism and advocate liberty in beer sales WHEN AND WHERE: West Steps, Colorado Capitol, 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 13 SPEAKERS: Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com Amanda Teresi, founder of Liberty on [...]

Poor Timing of FasTracks Tax Announcement Only Tip of Iceberg

by Ben DeGrow | 8:00 am, March 12, 2009

It’s kind of surreal to find these two headlines in the same edition of the Denver Post:

Colo. jobless at 21-year high: “The unemployment rate hasn’t been this high since April 1988, when it was at 6.7 percent. It is also higher than the 6.3 percent rate reached during the depths of the dot-com bust from [...]

Giving Mark Udall his due

by Rossputin | 1:34 am, March 12, 2009

As my readers know, I was a strong supporter of Bob Schaffer’s run for Senate. I opposed Mark Udall – and continue to oppose him – on most policy matters, though everyone I know who knows him says he’s a decent guy. (It’s only liberals who care more about intentions than outcomes.)

So, in the interest of fairness (and because it’s so rare), I want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate Senator Udall for co-sponsoring, with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Senate Resolution 63 which would:

1) require that “All congressionally directed spending items [earmarks] shall be included in the text of an appropriations or authorization bill and any conference report related to that appropriations or authorization bill”,

2) require any earmark request by a Senator to be put up on that Senator’s web site, in a way that is searchable and not concealed from public view, within 48 hours of the request,

3) define it as “out of order”, in Senate rules parlance, “to consider an appropriations or authorization bill, amendment, or conference report if it contains a congressionally directed spending item for a private for-profit or non-profit entity”, and

4) allow a Senator to raise a point of order against any earmark which is added to a bill during a House-Senate conference and which wasn’t in either chamber’s original bill, a practice often called “parachuting” or “airdropping” an earmark.

In other words, the McCaskill-Udall Resolution, which was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday, March 4th, might not stop earmarks but it could make them more difficult to sneak in and make an earmark request quite easy to turn into an embarrassment for a Senator. There’s no disinfectant in politics quite like the bright light of day.

So, although it may sound strange coming from me, thanks to Mark Udall for trying to draw the curtains open on the insidious practice of earmarking, an activity which Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) calls the “gateway drug on the road to the spending addiction.“

Colorado HB 1293: “The Colorado Healthcare Affordability Act”

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, March 12, 2009

This sounds like a way to get you to pay for other people’s health care, and not address the real problems of high medical and insurance costs.
From the Denver Daily News:
The Colorado Healthcare Affordability Act (CHAA), introduced last week as House Bill 1293 seeks to provide health coverage for up to 100,000 underinsured and uninsured [...]

Socialist Princess Pelosi: Stop Low-Income Breeding

by Joss Armstrong | 6:52 pm, March 11, 2009

Hate is a word reserved for how I feel about early mornings, liver, and the width of my hips.  I’m not prone to hating individuals.  I dislike, I disagree, I am angry, occasionally I hate what they do, but never the person them self.  Part of the easy-going tolerance thing my folks taught me growing [...]

Helpful Stimulus Flow Chart

by Mr. Bob | 6:03 pm, March 11, 2009

#tcot #stimulus

The Colorado Blogosphere is on a Roll … and It’s Only Wednesday

by Ben DeGrow | 8:59 am, March 11, 2009

Too much good stuff out there, too little time. Here’s a quick Wednesday morning roundup of the best from the Colorado blogs (in no particular order):

Rocky Mountain Right brings attention to Governor Bill Ritter’s lavish overseas business trip on Colorado taxpayers’ dime during a very tight budget situation
Now your 10 dollars (or more) can go [...]

The true colors of Card Check supporters

by Rossputin | 3:07 am, March 11, 2009

Yesterday, Congressman George Miller (D-AFL/CIO, and sometimes D-CA) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced the Orwellian “Employee Free Choice Act” into both houses of Congress.

The measure would require a company to accept the unionization of its workers without a secret ballot if half-plus-one of its workers sign cards requesting either a union or even a union election…and those signatures can be requested in public. It also would impose binding arbitration on companies which can not agree to a union contract, giving the new unions tremendous incentive to offer extremely expensive terms to the company and then take their chances with a likely pro-union arbitrator (assuming the plan gets set up where the arbitrator has some affiliation with the government.)

Although this information first hit the web more than a month ago, it bears repeating: In 2001, Congressman Miller was the lead signature on a letter to a department of the government of the Mexican state of Puebla which says:

As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.

We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.

We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.

You can see the original letter HERE.

And in case you think Miller is an outlier in his hypocrisy, here are the other 15 signatories of the letter, all Democratic (or socialist) members of the House of Representatives at the time:

Rep. Marcy Kaptur – D-OH
Bernie Sanders – I-VT…Sanders, a socialist, is now in the Senate
William Coyne – (former) D-PA
Lane Evans – (former) D-IL
Bob Filner – D-CA
Martin Sabo – D-MN
Barney Frank – D-MA
Joe Baca – D-CA
Zoe Lofgren – D-CA
Dennis Kucinich – D-OH
Calvin Dooley – (former) D-CA
Pete Stark – D-CA
Barbara Lee – D-CA
James McGovern – D-MA
Lloyd Doggett – D-TX

It will be fascinating to see how any of these people who are still in Congress spin their hypocrisy. I doubt any of them are in districts that could be won by a Republican. If they were, this letter could be interesting leverage on their votes. However, as I’ve said before, this measure will pass by a fairly wide margin in the House, so the real battle is in the Senate and this letter should be shown frequently to any Senator who is on the fence about his or her vote.

My letter to Senators Cochran and Shelby

by Rossputin | 12:59 am, March 11, 2009

Republican Senators Thad Cochran (Mississippi) and Richard Shelby (Alabama) are currently being counted as “definite” supporters of Barack Obama’s budget. Shelby has a reported $114 million in earmarks in the bill, and Cochran has $76 million.

These guys represent, at least in this case, just what’s wrong with the GOP and why they keep (deservedly) losing at the polls: They don’t walk the talk.

Here is the note I sent to each of them on Tuesday:

Dear Senator ______,

The nation is far more important than any one state’s or any one politician’s earmarks.

I strongly urge you not to be the Republican vote that lets President Obama saddle my children (and theirs) with even more debt than he already has.

I strongly urge you not to be the Republican vote that allows Democrats to say that the budget was a bipartisan effort, taking away a lot of political leverage for future fiscally conservative candidates.

You are theoretically a conservative and a Republican. Please act like one when the vote on Obama’s budget comes to the floor. I expect repugnant behavior from Arlen Specter, but I and the nation expect better from you.

Americans following President Obama’s Economic Policies

by Rossputin | 12:05 am, March 11, 2009

I like this picture so much I also added it to the “sidebar” of my blog…

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers