The Immorality of the Greens

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 9:26 am, May 12, 2009

Denver Post columnist Susan Greene takes Colorado Governor Bill Ritter to task for not being “green” enough.

In her column today, “Tri-State’s green paint just won’t stick,” she disagrees with Ritter’s praise of Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, a rural co-op that she says “generates a quarter of Colorado’s power.”

She takes Tri-State to task because “less than 1 percent” of the power generated by the company “comes from renewables” and “at least 72 percent of its base load, and counting, comes from coal.”

Not once does Ms. Greene mention that “renewable” energy is far more costly to produce than coal based energy. By ignoring the costs, she can ignore reality. The rest of us can not.

The reality is that “green” energy is going to make it too costly for some to heat their homes.

Higher energy costs hurt the poor more than they hurt the rich. The rich can just write a bigger check every month. The poor do not have that option.

Renewable energy has its benefits. But ignoring its costs is dishonest.

Raising the prices of a basic need on the poorest among us – without even considering the impact on them – is callous and immoral.

RMA Blog Talk Radio Tonight at 8:30: Candidates Ken Buck, Scott Gessler

by Ben DeGrow | 6:54 am, May 12, 2009

Tune in tonight at 8:30 PM local Mountain time for the 26th edition of Rocky Mountain Alliance Blog Talk Radio. We have two guests on tap – both Colorado Republican statewide candidates in 2010 to discuss their respective campaigns and related issues:

At 8:45, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck
At 9:30, Colorado Secretary of State candidate Scott [...]

Cap-and-trade to alter climate by at most a fraction of a degree

by Rossputin | 2:08 am, May 12, 2009

Chip Knappenberger, a climatologist in Virginia’s state climatology office has written an interesting blog piece in which he uses a basic climate model to estimate the climate effects of the currently-proposed Waxman-Markey “cap-and-trade” bill. While the model is certainly flawed, as are all such models, it’s not unreasonable to use it as a tool for comparing climate expectations both in the presence and in the absence of the cap-and-trade bill.

See “Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain)“, Chip Knappenberger, 5/6/09

Knappenberger’s conclusion is that you never hear “cap and trade” supporters touting the climate benefits of their bill because there are none worth mentioning: “The bottom line is that a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of greater than 80%, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey climate bill will only produce a global temperature “savings” during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC.”

While reading the article, remember that as bill’s supporters throw around a $700 billion price tag (effectively higher costs/taxes on Americans who buy anything, drive a car, heat a home, etc), Budget Director Peter Orszag has repeatedly that “cap and trade” will substantially increase energy costs (including, of course, electricity)…

and that the deputy director of the National Economic Council has said that the $646 billion estimate is far too low – the real number will be double or triple that amount:

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/17/kerpen_cap_and_trade_triple_cost/

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Money beats good government

by Amy Oliver | 10:16 pm, May 11, 2009

COST believes that tranpsarency is more than just online databases of government expenditures and revenues. It’s about good government — transparent, accountable and completely open. That’s why we were so disappointed to read about SB 297, which allows state agencies to circumvent standard competitve bidding practices for “high dollar projects” if agencies feel they may be [...]

Pueblo School 9th Grade Assignment: Illustrate “Act Of Terrorism”; Superintendent: Students “Misinterpreted” Assignment

by elpresidente | 10:16 pm, May 11, 2009

Touchy-feely multicultural nonsense? An poorly designed pedagogical experiment?

You be the judge:

A ninth grade history project at a high school in Pueblo was supposed to teach students about terrorism, but instead it outraged parents.

Gini Fischer says her daughter came home Thursday saying she had two minutes to come up with a plot for an act of terrorism.

Over 110 freshmen at Pueblo County High School were given the project.

The teacher claims the assignment was to illustrate an act of terrorism by a foreign government on American soil.

Fischer says, “To ask them to use their creative energies to come up with a plot for an act of terrorism is very ludicrous.”

What’s the over/under on the unnamed teacher’s political affiliation?

The ridiculous assignment has the administrative types running for cover and claiming the students “misinterpreted” the teacher’s intent:

District 70 Superintendent Dr. Dan Lere said students may have misinterpreted the assignment.

He says if a student, “actually did illustrate an act of terrorism that they might commit, let’s say against the school, we’ve expelled students for that.”

The school district has decided to collect the assignment from students and destroy them.

Wait, I thought the students “misinterpreted” the assignment? Why destroy them?

Even under the most favorable reading, an assignment that asks high school students to envision, illustrate, contemplate, or otherwise interpret an act of terrorism, especially one on American soil, should be handled with healthy dose of reasonability. Would an assignment of this type, considering terrorism domestically (as it appears this assignment called for) or anywhere else for that matter be considered reasonable? If so, under what conditions?

The superintendent begins by placing the blame on the students for a misunderstanding of the assignment, and yet the school district has seen fit to destroy the students’ work.

Hmmm.

The Evidence Mounts Against EFCA, and Michael Bennet Still Can’t Decide

by Ben DeGrow | 9:46 pm, May 11, 2009

James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation (and a proud fellow Hillsdale College alumnus) breaks down the evidence to debunk the “Employer Advantage” myth at the heart of Big Labor’s argument for the card-check bill before Congress:
The law stacks the deck against employers in union drives. And – contrary to union assertions – the overwhelming majority [...]

Legislature Passes Job-Killing Bills

by Ari Armstrong | 11:57 am, May 11, 2009

The following article originally was published in the May 11, 2009, edition of Grand Junction’s Free Press.

Legislature passes job-killing bills

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The Colorado legislature is pro-business in roughly the same way that throwing a dog a bone after beating him mercilessly is pro-dog.

That didn’t stop three journalists — Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal, Peter Marcus of the Denver Daily News, and Steven Paulson of the Associated Press — from regurgitating political propaganda last week about “job creation” bills and calling it news.

So now we’ll give you the full story. (We figure if you’re going to get lame editorials on the news pages elsewhere, you might as well get some real news on the editorial pages here.)

The main “jobs” measure in question is House Bill 1001, fawned over by politicians, bureaucrats, and various journalists alike. While the measure features Democrats as lead sponsors, various Republicans also signed on, including Steve King and Josh Penry.

Bill 1001 adds several new pages of tortured legalese to the Colorado statutes (section 39-22-531, because we know you’ll want to look it up later) allowing the Colorado Economic Development Commission, at its discretion, to offer a “job growth incentive tax credit,” as calculated in accordance with the bill.

And what is the Colorado Economic Development Commission? Its web page notes, “It consists of nine members five of whom are appointed by the Governor, two by the President of the Senate and two by the Speaker of the House.”

Those of you who thought we lived in a free-market economy were sorely mistaken. Now we have a bureaucratic commission to help set the rules of business and determine the winners and losers. Business is no longer about offering goods and services on a level playing field where the laws apply the same to everybody. Now business is about sucking up to the Commissars for special political favors.

Bill 1001 is about taxing businesses with existing jobs more in order to reduce the tax burden on businesses with “new” jobs. And we’re supposed to swallow the notion that these discriminatory taxes are fair.

The hidden premise behind Bill 1001 is that taxes kill jobs, a premise with which we agree. Yet, instead of reducing taxes across the board so that everyone can benefit equally, the legislature wants to reward politically-correct and politically-connected businesses at the expense of everybody else.

And Bill 1001 is the good news of the legislative session. Remember, even the Democrat-controlled legislature implicitly grants that taxes kill jobs. Therefore, the legislature has done everything it can to increase taxes during the current recession. (Note that the governor had not acted on some of these bills as of our deadline.)

During this recession, many taxpayers are taking a hit, either in reduced work, reduced wages, or less business. Yet, rather than take an equal hit, Governor Bill Ritter just signed a $17.9 billion state budget, or about $3,500 for every man, woman, and child. While the total budget is less than the $18.6 billion for 2008-09, it exceeds the $17.2 billion for 2007-08 (as relayed by the Joint Budget Committee).

To keep state spending high, the legislature has looked for new ways to make people pay. Two of the worst bills of the session raise fees on cars and hospital visits. During a recession the legislature must screw drivers and the sick especially hard to fund more bureaucracy.

Senate Bill 108, the Denver Post reports, would increase the “cost of vehicle registration by an average of $41 for typical vehicles.” We continue to wonder where all our gasoline tax dollars are going.

House Bill 1293, laughably called the “Health Care Affordability Act of 2009,” would impose “hospital provider fees… on outpatient and inpatient services provided by all licensed or certified hospitals.”

You see, this fee will make your health care more “affordable” by forcing you to pay more for the health care of others. (Paging Dr. Orwell.)

In order to hide these fees from patients, the legislature helpfully included the following line: “A hospital shall not include any amount of the provider fee as a separate line item in its billing statements.”

As we have discussed, the real problem is that the federal government forces hospitals to provide care without compensation. But the solution to the problem is to repeal those federal controls, not force even more wealth redistribution.

The legislature also passed bills to increase capital-gains taxes (bill 1366), cigarette taxes (bill 1342), and net sales taxes (bill 212). (Though we gave the Denver Business Journal a bit of heck earlier, we gratefully acknowledge the paper’s reporting on these bills.)

But doesn’t the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights require voter approval for all such hikes? Silly taxpayer. You have obviously confused the plain language of TABOR with the Colorado Supreme Court’s transcendent reasoning. (For details, see ClearTheBenchColorado.org.)

We haven’t even gotten into the bills that increase the costs of doing business and reward people for not working.

We do have one thing to be thankful for: the legislature has disbanded till January.

“The Time Is Now” to Get Connected with the American Liberty Alliance

by Ben DeGrow | 7:32 am, May 11, 2009

If we are to be successful, pro-liberty groups and individuals are going to have to be more collaborative. There is strength in numbers. To a good extent, this movement has begun in Colorado — with the People’s Press Collective, Liberty on the Rocks, and other projects. But plenty of work remains to be done on [...]

Let’s put these guys in charge of your health care!

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 6:57 am, May 11, 2009

The kind of planning and efficiency the government routinely provides was amply illustrated on the front page of Sunday’s Denver Post in two separate articles.

States’ red tape a sticking point in safety nets

WASHINGTON — As millions of people seek government aid, many for the first time, they are finding it dispensed American style: through a jumble of disconnected programs that reach some and reject others, often for reasons of geography or chance rather than differences in need.

Bridge plan goes nowhere

DURANGO — A three-lane bridge, envisioned as the centerpiece of a $54 million highway project, is sitting between a cow pasture and a mesa as the state struggles to get rights of way to connect it to actual roads.

You can not make this stuff up.

The sad part is that the majority of people in this country want to give the government MORE authority.

Is Colorado’s Legislature Really This Bad?

by Rossputin | 6:24 am, May 11, 2009

Dems dominate both houses of the legislature and the Democratic chief executive is an inexperienced politician who tries to be all things to all people while being particularly pliant toward the wishes of unions and environmentalists. Sounds like Washington, DC, but sadly I’m talking about Colorado….

For today’s reading, I offer you my column at HumanEvents.com discussing the just-ended 2009 Colorado legislative session.

See “Is Colorado’s Legislature Really this Bad?“, Ross Kaminsky, Human Events, 5/11/09
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31810

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

The Power of the Purse and the Fed

by Ryan | 6:07 am, May 11, 2009

A significant part of the struggle for government that is both limited and run by the people was waged on our behalf by our English forerunners. The most significant aspect of this battle was English citizens gaining the power of the purse over the Monarchy in a struggle that lasted hundreds of years. As the [...]

Cliff Asness: Unafraid in Greenwich Connecticut

by Rossputin | 1:04 am, May 9, 2009

Thanks to Mike for forwarding me this truly excellent article. I have verified that it was indeed written by Cliff Asness of AQR Capital Management, LLC. If I had money to allocate, this letter alone would make me want to invest in their firm.

Unafraid In Greenwich Connecticut
Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC

The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter”, was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear.

I run an approximately twenty billion dollar money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President’s comments (of course these are my own views not those of my company). Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called “Not Afraid Enough” as I am indeed fearful writing this… It’s really a bad idea to speak out. Angering the President is a mistake and, my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally “sacrifice” their money without their permission.

Here’s a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders’ contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

Let’s quickly review a few side issues.

The President’s attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to “sacrifice” some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

Let’s also mention only in passing the irony of this same President begging hedge funds to borrow more to purchase other troubled securities. That he expects them to do so when he has already shown what happens if they ask for their money to be repaid fairly would be amusing if not so dangerous.

That hedge funds might not participate in these programs because of fear of getting sucked into some toxic demagoguery that ends in arbitrary punishment for trying to work with the Treasury is distressing. Some useful programs, like those designed to help finance consumer loans, won’t work because of this irresponsible hectoring.

Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people’s money. The President’s comments here are backwards and libelous. Yet, somehow I don’t think the hedge funds will be following ACORN’s lead and trucking in a bunch of paid professional protesters soon. Hedge funds really need a community organizer.

This is America. We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.

I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

CU Regents reject responsible and licensed Concealed-Carry, effectively declaring “open season” on students

by Captain Arapahoe | 11:45 pm, May 8, 2009

Last week, two events occurred with significant implications for the safety of students on college campuses, specifically on the various campuses and property of the University of Colorado. First, the CU Regents succeeded in getting a lawsuit, brought by students seeking to responsibly exercise their constitutional rights and secure their own safety, thrown out on [...]

Tidwell our savior? Coverage of Tidwell in Colorado Springs

by admin | 2:03 pm, May 8, 2009

( – promoted by Rocky Mountain Right -)
(Cross posted at http://thejeffcrankshow.blogspot.com/)

Newt Gingrich once admitted that when he was in High School, he decided that he wanted to be Speaker of the House. When Joe Lieberman was in college, his friends used to refer to him as “Mr. President”, because even back then, he had a strong interest in politics. I completely understand why someone would decide early that politics was something they wanted to pursue; climbing the political ladder is not a quick process. It can take years to develop the engaging personality, the personal contacts, and the mindset necessary to be successful both as a candidate and as an office holder.

But sometimes we dream. We dream that somewhere out there there is a candidate who can and will burst suddenly onto the political scene. They’ll have solid policy proposals, a sharp wit, and a firm handshake. They’ll be charismatic, full of energy, and people will instantly love them. Sure, they’ll start out small-but once people get to know them the crowds will grow larger. Their standing in the polls will increase and conventional wisdom will be confounded until alas! they are elected to the office in which they were seeking. And all of this is accomplished without the slow and methodical rise to power that so many others have painstakingly subjected themselves to.

Yesterday a gentleman named Cleve Tidwell announced his candidacy for the United States Senate in Acacia Park. Was this unknown businessman from the Denver area to be the candidate we dreamt will swoop in and save the day?

No.

Not just “no”, but seriously…..NO!

Where to start?

When I first heard about Mr. Tidwell’s announcement, I started by googling his name. I found some interesting posting on blogs from people obviously trying to generate excitement about the campaign. The jewel was this one left at Bendegrow.com:

“So yesterday I receive this verbatim email message from a mysterious “Victorila Rasheem” (all errors of spelling and syntax preserved):

“I think taht your website should do a think on Cleve Tidwell. Most say that he has the support of most if not all of the major donors in the state. Also much of the grassroots is excited for him and is backing him to be the senator for colorado. I do not know if Dick Wadhams found him or not but if he did it was a good find because he is a good candidaet and wiill win. He is a very good speaker and will be at most events when he is senator because he will represent people in Colorado. Also, he has not spoken with the press so whatever you might hear if anything is probably just their way of trying to create a story or gossip. He has wonderful friends in the news media and when the time is right he will discuss with them. He is a very busy man but he will get the job done because that is his way.”

Uhm, yeah.

I don’t want to cast stones here-I frequently misspell words or use prepositions or commit other atrocities that would make my former English teachers cry-but my writings haven’t been bad enough to where people wonder if my attempt to make someone look good isn’t actually a thinly veiled attempt to make them look bad.

Needless to say, it’s not a good first impression.

Then there was yesterday’s announcement….

According to my source, it was an interesting announcement-if you like train wrecks.

First there was Mr. Tidwell’s staff. According to my source, some of them were perfectly nice, cordial, and professional, while others apparently don’t understand that their actions speak for their candidate. A couple of pointers: it’s a campaign, not a bar. Staffers hitting on other staffers at a campaign event are displaying incredibly poor taste. And while neither my source nor me are entirely clear on the context of this one, the words “Hey, did you know that the Star of David is really a swastika?” should never be uttered by a staffer at an event-even in jest. In fact, let’s put that under the category of “should never be uttered by anyone at any time”, shall we?

Secondly, my source and others seem to think that Mr. Tidwell is a nice enough guy, but he doesn’t seem to have a lot of direction in his quest for the U.S. Senate. His “announcement” at Acacia Park contained no real speech, so no one could come away with a cohesive message as to why he or anyone else should think that he is the best candidate for the office he is seeking. How is that supposed to make me feel comfortable about our prospects of taking out Senator Bennett if a candidate can’t even convey a cohesive message?

Finally, Mr. Tidwell’s invitations referenced the fact that they would be serving food (BBQ pork) in protest of the Federal government’s penchant for pork. Does anyone else see the irony of protesting an entitlement system that gives people something for free by giving them free…pork? Wait, what?

So for each of you out there, I have a simple proposition: save your time and effort. As it stands now, Mr. Tidwell is not the unknown untested candidate with the skills to break away from the pack and save us at the end of the day. He is simply the unknown and untested candidate who if he is our nominee will only prove that the Colorado Republican Party is indeed in a sad state of affairs.

Colorado LOSES: Represent State Employees, No Union Middleman

by Ben DeGrow | 1:41 pm, May 8, 2009

Having already won Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s November 2007 executive order allowing exclusive union representation in state government, the table is set for organized labor to push for full-fledged and permanent bargaining legislation by next year. Many of those who would be purported to benefit from such legislation might have a different idea, however.
On an [...]

Peter Marcus’s Lap-Dog Journalism

by Ari Armstrong | 9:28 am, May 8, 2009

While Peter Marcus of the Denver Daily News smeared the Tea Party last month, he has been nothing but a fawning advocate of new tax-and-spend legislation. Marcus seems to see his job as journalist to amplify Governor Bill Ritter’s views and agenda. His “news” stories are little more than fawning editorials.

Today’s headline offers some indication of the paper’s political leanings: “Guv lists goals reached: Ritter happy lawmakers targeted jobs, education, transportation, more.” Marcus’s “news” story consists entirely of praise for Ritter. Out of the entire population of Colorado or of Denver, apparently, Marcus could not find a single critical voice.

Marcus, for example, praises Ritter’s signing of Senate Bill 67, which “commits $2.5 million in public funds to leverage more than $50 million in private bank loans.”

But wait just a minute. Do private banks refuse to grant loans unless they are subsidized by tax dollars? As a rule, no. They make money by judicially giving out loans; that’s their business. So it’s simply wrong to think that the $50 million depends on the $2.5 million. It is true that today credit is crunched — and that is because the federal government promoted risky loans. The solution is to get government out of the loan businesses.

As we’re “helping” politically-connected businesses with the $2.5 million in tax funds, whom are we hurting? We’re hurting everyone who no longer has access to that $2.5 million. Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not improve the economy. Moreover, forcibly transferring wealth from some people to others is morally wrong and a violation of individual rights.

But Marcus is not about offering a balanced news story. He is about pushing a political agenda in the news pages.

As to whether the legislature’s overall policies in fact serve to benefit the economy, my dad and I will have more to say about that on Monday.

What can poker teach us about economics? A lot, actually.

by The Constitutional Reporter | 8:46 am, May 8, 2009

The Constitutional Reporter hosted the first ever “Poker and Politics” tournament yesterday at Auraria Campus. Students from a European Politics class were invited to play poker with celebrity dealers Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute and r…

Is George McGovern Michael Bennet’s Way Out of Card-Check Indecision?

by Ben DeGrow | 8:06 am, May 8, 2009

Liberal former U.S. Senator George McGovern smacks down Congressional Democrats again. Last year he spoke out against the so-called Employee “Free Choice” Act for depriving workers of the secret ballot. Yesterday McGovern explains in a Wall Street Journal op-ed why the binding arbitration provisions in the bill is equally bad:

Currently, labor law maintains a careful [...]

John Shadegg: Get ready for health care rationing

by Rossputin | 2:26 am, May 8, 2009

Arizona Congressman John Shadegg is trying to get the word out about what the Democrats’ health care plans really mean. Let’s help him. Please pass this link around widely:

Ready for Rationing?

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Jack Kemp’s words ring truer than ever

by Rossputin | 1:53 am, May 8, 2009

As you all know, Jack Kemp passed away on Saturday. Rather than list his many accomplishments here, you can read Fox News’ article about Kemp, one of the most influential free-market politicians of my lifetime.

Writing in the WSJ’s Political Diary, Robert Costa referenced Jack Kemp’s 1996 Vice-Presidential nomination acceptance speech, which you can find HERE.

Several quotes from the speech bear repeating today…particularly repeating to Republican leaders:

“Our goal is not just to win, but to be worthy of winning.”

I believe that today America is on the threshold of the greatest period of economic opportunity, technological development and entrepreneurial adventure in our history. We have before us tomorrows that are even more thrilling than our most glorious yesterdays.

And yet the genius of the American people is being stifled. Our economy is growing at the slowest pace of any recovery in this century. The income of working men and women is actually dropping. And there is a gnawing feeling throughout our nation that – in some way, for some reason – there is something wrong.

Our friends in the other party say the economy is moving forward, and it is. But it is moving like a ship dragging an anchor, the anchor of high taxes, excessive regulation and big government.

They say that is the best we can hope for. But that is because they have put their entire trust in government rather than people – a government that runs our lives, our businesses, our schools. You see, they don’t believe in the unlimited possibilities that freedom brings.

The Democratic Party today is not democratic. They’re elitists – they don’t have faith in the people. They have faith in government… That is the problem with all elitists, they think they know better than the people – but the truth is, there is a wisdom and intelligence in ordinary women and men far superior to the greatest so-called experts.

That is why they are the party of the status quo.

And specifically on a couple of policy issues:

But this is just the beginning – the first step. We are going to scrap the whole, fatally flawed internal revenue code and replace it with a fairer, simpler, flatter system. We will end the IRS as we know it.

We will start with a 15 percent across-the-board tax cut, a $500 per child tax credit and cutting the capital gains tax by half. We’re going to take the side of the worker, the saver, the family and the entrepreneur. The American people can use their money more wisely than can government. It’s time they had more of a chance, and we will give them that chance.

“My friends, we are a nation of immigrants. The…reason we must close the backdoor of illegal immigration is so that we can keep open the front door of legal immigration – and keep the light of opportunity lifted beside the golden door.”

“(F)reedom is never guaranteed – and our nation and its president must be strong enough to stand up for freedom against all who would challenge it.”

Our goal is not just a more prosperous America but a better America. An America that recognizes the infinite worth of every individual and, like the Good Shepherd, leaves the ninety-nine to find the one lost lamb.

An America that honors – in all its institutions – the values that mothers and fathers want to pass on to her children. An America that makes the ideal of equality a daily reality – equality of opportunity, equality in human dignity, equality before the laws of man as well as in the eyes of God.

Even though I’m not religious, I say we all respond to Jack Kemp with a sincere “hallelujah”.

American can and should be better than it is. As I’ve harped on lately, the GOP must come to the realization that support of these simple, basic principles of liberty and free markets are the only reason for the party’s existence and the only way they’ll ever return to political power. And should they return to power and abandon those principles again, as they did during the George W. Bush presidency, we should boot them out again. But first things first…

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Peter Groff Departs Denver with Nonpartisan Education Reform Gesture

by Ben DeGrow | 9:40 pm, May 7, 2009

A month ago I asked which party will miss Democrat Senate President Peter Groff more under Colorado’s Golden Dome.
Several days ago Senator Nancy Spence told me that Groff’s parting gesture as Senate President before heading off to work for the Obama administration in Washington D.C. would be to appoint her — a Republican — to [...]

U.S. Senate Candidate Ken Buck Responds to Campaign Rumors

by Ben DeGrow | 3:30 pm, May 7, 2009

This morning a post appeared on Rocky Mountain Right about the first announced Republican candidate in Colorado’s U.S. Senate race:
Reports are trickling out that [Ken] Buck has split with Phase Line Strategies, a Republican consulting firm made up of GOP veterans who would have probably been fulfilling most of Buck’s fundraising and communications needs, and [...]

Government Orders Business Around. Newspaper Unconcerned.

by TJ Wihera | 3:28 pm, May 7, 2009

The Washington Post is reporting that the federal government has ordered the financing arm of GM to raise 13 billion dollars.

Interestingly, the paper seems to be taking the whole “federal government orders business” aspect in stride, instead choosing to focus on the the mechanics of the process.

Let’s put these guys in charge of your health care!

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 2:11 pm, May 7, 2009

From the front page of today’s Denver Post:

“Delays in food stamps tackled

A state computer system is still causing backlogs; a new vendor aims to unclog it.”

Bill 1984 Advances

by Ari Armstrong | 12:45 pm, May 7, 2009

Colorado Senate Bill 241, which I’ve taken to calling “Bill 1984″ because of its Orwellian implications, allows police to collect people’s DNA based merely on arrest. The basic argument against the bill is that it creates a perverse incentive for police to arrest people on some pretext just to look at their DNA.

Nor does an amendment change the basic nature of the bill. The Denver Post reports that the bill “is on the way to Gov. Bill Ritter’s desk after [it] was amended to allow police to take DNA tests upon arrest but for the sample not to be processed unless a person is charged. The sample will be destroyed if no charges are filed.” All this does is extend the perverse incentive to charging somebody on some pretext, knowing full well the charges will be dismissed, just to look at the person’s DNA.

Mike Krause and Joe Carr also loot at some of the funding injustices surrounding the bill.

Republican Scott Tipton said, “We did a good thing today. We helped protect that population out there called our daughters and our wives.”

Well, Scott, I talked to my wife about this, and she wants no part of your fascistic police state.

Gardner Announces!

by admin | 10:22 am, May 7, 2009

( – promoted by Rocky Mountain Right -)

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan.

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090507/UPDATES01/90507006

Cory Gardner announces GOP challenge to Markey

Colorado staff

State Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, will announce today that he’ll run for Betsy Markey’s 4th Congressional District seat in 2010.

Gardner is the second announced Republican candidate, joining University of Colorado Regent Tom Lucero in what is likely to be a crowded GOP field.

“I have always been a champion for rural Colorado, small business issues and been a constant warrior for fiscal responsibility,” Gardner told the online political publication Politico in an e-mail. “One thing’s for sure – the people of the 4th Congressional District will know where I stand and who I am fighting for.”

Other possible Republican candidates include former Fort Collins City Council member Diggs Brown, Larimer County Commissioner Steve Johnson and former Weld County Commissioner Bill Jerke.

Markey defeated three-term incumbent Marilyn Musgrave by 12 percentage points in 2008, becoming the first Democrat since 1972 to win a 4th Congressional District race.

More details in Friday’s Coloradoan.

Enough Already with the Swine Flu Hysteria and Media Obsession, Please

by Ben DeGrow | 8:13 am, May 7, 2009

#Biden #tcot #swineflu
Last week, columnist Jay Ambrose did a fine job swatting down the swine flu hysteria. The Wall Street Journal‘s Bret Stephens chipped in with the swine-flu hysteria contest winner a couple days ago:

Of course the winner of the contest is Mr. Biden, since he lacks even the excuse of a self-interested motive. But standing right behind the vice president is a legion of heavily credentialed panic proliferators.

These are the people whose terrifying forecasts you last heard during the avian flu panic of 2005 (deaths to date: 257, according to the World Health Organization) and the SARS panic of 2002-2003 (774 deaths). By contrast, garden-variety flus typically kill upwards of 30,000 Americans a year.

You might also have a vague memory of the “mad cow” panic that gripped the world in the 1990s. In his 1997 book “Deadly Feasts,” Richard Rhodes warned that the human variant of mad cow, known as vCJD, might kill as many as 500,000 people a year in Britain alone. So far, total confirmed cases world-wide run to around 150.

Has anyone ever heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? This graphic makes a telling point:

It’s probably an exaggeration. The green sliver is probably too big, but the creators had to make it visible to complete the effect.

Not to pick on the Boulder Daily Camera, but this story is just one example of how the hysteria contagion is about as disturbing as the spread of the H1N1 strain itself.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming…

Ken Buck campaign dissolves?

by admin | 7:00 am, May 7, 2009

(- posted by Senate Watch -)

Just over a week into his senate campaign, word is breaking in Republican circles that the Ken Buck campaign has essentially dissolved.

Reports are trickling out that Buck has split with Phase Line Strategies, a Republican consulting firm made up of GOP veterans who would have probably been fulfilling most of Buck’s fundraising and communications needs, and that his campaign manager may have departed as well. Details are sketchy at this point, but the reports are coming from enough directions that it appears very likely to be true.

Buck’s campaign launch was marred by an awkward announcement and the Colorado Statesman raised questions about a statement by Buck regarding polling in the race. After those early problems, Ken Buck may face a nearly insurmountable task in gaining any momentum this quarter if he has in fact lost the majority of his staff already. Unless he can regain footing quickly, he may find himself sidelined.

UPDATE: Ben DeGrow at Mount Virtus called up Buck for a statement on the departure of his campaign staff. Buck says that the polling issue was the result of a misinrepretation by the Greeley Tribune, this seems very probable given some of the glaring mis-prints put out by the Tribune on the race as of late. Buck also went on to say that no campaign manager had been hired and that he wasn’t sure why people were being quoted as such in the news, this is a bit difficult to swallow. Someone was telling the reporters that he had CM.

The explanation that Phase Line was not on the payroll and that their departure doesn’t matter seems to be along the lines of Scott McInnis’ "but, I’m not a candidate yet" explanations over the recent voicemail that was leaked. This early in a campaign, no one gets paid because there isn’t any money raised yet to pay anyone. Buck has apparently now brought on Walt Klein as general consultant but there is little doubt that Phase Line was slated to have an extensive role.

Specter gets what he deserves from Democrats

by Rossputin | 2:33 am, May 7, 2009

[Update 2: After posting the prior update about Specter being given a subcommittee chairmanship, ultra-liberal Democratic Senator Pat Leahy (VT) is at least temporarily disrupting that deal.]

[Update: Two days after stripping Specter of his seniority, the Democrats then gave him the chairmanship of the Crime and Drugs subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. This appears to be in part a response to a likely Democratic primary challenge to Specter, as I predicted in the note below.]

Here’s a fascinating story from the WSJ’s John Fund:

Nobody Likes a Turncoat

Senate Democrats finally found an entitlement program they dislike so much that they voted to eliminate it last night. No, it wasn’t a budget vote to shrink the size of government. It was the deal that Senator Arlen Specter cut with Majority Leader Harry Reid to preserve Mr. Specter’s committee seniority despite his move from the Republican Party to Democratic Party. On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Mr. Specter had called his seniority an “entitlement” he deserved.

“I was elected in 1980. I think [keeping my seniority] is not a bribe or a give for something extraordinary,” he said. “I’ll be treated as a Democrat as if I was elected as a Democrat.”

Not so fast. Resentful Democrats went on the warpath against Mr. Reid’s offer to treat Mr. Specter as if he had been a Democrat since 1980 – an arrangement that could make Mr. Specter a committee chairman if he wins re-election next year. Senate Democrats effectively agreed by voice vote last night to strip Mr. Specter of his seniority – avoiding a roll-call vote that would have revealed exactly who his adversaries inside the Democratic caucus are. Mr. Specter will now be listed as the most junior member on the Judiciary Committee, meaning he’ll be last in line for questioning whomever President Obama appoints to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. That’s a big comedown from his role as chairman during the confirmation battles surrounding John Roberts and Sam Alito in 2005.

With the loss of seniority, there is almost no way Mr. Specter can become even a subcommittee chairman assuming he wins a sixth term next year. It robs him of a major selling point he was planning to use to convince Pennsylvania voters to return him to office. Mr. Specter will argue that Democrats could always revisit the issue of his seniority after the 2010 elections, but the precedents aren’t good. In 2003, Democrats enticed former Senator Frank Lautenberg back into public life to save the New Jersey seat held by scandal-tarred Bob Torricelli. Mr. Lautenberg kept the seat for his party as the last-minute Democratic nominee, but was relegated to junior roles on committees even though he had 18 years of prior service in the Senate.

It seems that Mr. Specter, a master political operator and opportunist, has been outfoxed. He may have an easier time winning renomination in a Democratic primary, but his new party has now stripped him of his most precious Senate asset – his seniority.

What could be better than this?

This is the worst thing that could have happened to Arlen Specter, and a nice gift to Republicans and Pat Toomey in their quest to defeat Specter in 2010. Indeed, it even opens the door a little wider to the possibility of a primary challenge to Specter in Pennsylvania, not just because Specter will have that much less clout, but also because his snubbing by the Democrats may cause him to vote slightly more often with the Republicans than he otherwise might have.

Republican leaders in the senate must be laughing out loud and thinking to themselves “What did you expect, Arlen? They’re Democrats and they’re politicians!”

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Sine Die

by Ben DeGrow | 9:26 pm, May 6, 2009

It sounds like a garbled threat, or possibly a song from the High Mass. Sine die means neither, but it is cause for high celebration: The Colorado state legislature is adjourned for 2009, at least for the regular session. (I’m hearing insiders say that the Governor very well may call a special session in the [...]

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

Follow PPC

Search

WayIn

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Advertise Here!

Categories

Archives

Meta

Blogroll

Contributors