Breaking: Colorado Supreme Court–Illegal Immigrants Possess Constitutional Privacy Rights

by elpresidente | 5:35 pm, December 14, 2009

Breaking: The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that authorities violated the constitutional privacy rights of illegal immigrants when they seized their tax records in an identify-theft investigation, a decision that infuriated illegal-immigration foes. In a 4-3 decision, the court upheld a March ruling by a Weld County district judge, who held that tax returns are [...]

19-Year-Old Student Daniel Lippman Proofreads Beltway Reporters

by Ben DeGrow | 5:20 pm, December 14, 2009

And I thought I was anal. (H/T Betsy’s Page)
Now if someone could help with the AP’s whole ideologically-driven, selectively sloppy investigation problem.

Statism Needs our Cooperation

by Justin Longo | 5:12 pm, December 14, 2009

Even Hitler and the Nazi’s, as totalitarian and ruthless they were, could not have done what they did without the tacit cooperation of the countries they victimized. It’s amazing what a little nonviolent resistance can accomplish: Danish, Norwegian, and Dutch resistance to Nazism from 1940 to 1945 was pronounced and fairly successful. In Norway, for [...]

BlueCarp 2009-12-14 15:14:00

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 3:14 pm, December 14, 2009

News Release

_______________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release – Dec. 14, 2009

Contact: Jeff Crank, Colorado State Director, (719) 332-8644

Americans for Prosperity Holds Code Red Rally at U.S. Senate Offices

Coloradans to Visit U.S. Senators at Five Colorado Locations

COLORADO SPRINGS – Thousands of Americans converged on the House of Representatives in November with our Congressional House Calls – both in Washington, D.C. and their home districts – to let them know we don’t want this brand of health reform. We want reform that puts patients first. That bill passed by an extremely narrow margin, showing Congress is divided on this issue.

Now the fight has turned to the Senate, and it’s down to the wire. Coloradans face hundreds of billions in escalating costs, new taxes, and government-forced health insurance backed by penalties of fines and jail time.

The No. 1 reason Congress has taken this long on this issue is the American people – Americans rallying for a fresh start on health reform.

As the Senate nears the end of the health care debate Coloradans have one last opportunity to stand up for health care freedom in a way Senators Udall and Bennet won’t forget.

AFP is hosting a Code Red Rally at the U.S. Capitol this coming Tuesday, December 15th to tell the Senate to keep their hands off our health care. In Colorado, we will be visiting the offices of our Senators at four locations throughout the state.

Event Details:

Code Red Rally at U.S. Senate Offices in Colorado

Time: 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Colorado Springs
Senator Michael Bennet’s Office
409 North Tejon St, suite 107
(meet on sidewalk in front of building)

Contact: Chuck Broerman

Denver
Senator Mark Udall’s Office
999 18th Street ,
North Tower, Suite 1525
(meet on sidewalk in front of North Tower)

Contact: David Williams

Fort Collins
Senator Michael Bennet’s Office
1200 S. College Ave Suite 221
(meet on sidewalk in front of building)

Contact: Debbie Healy

Grand Junction
Senator Michael Bennet/Senator Mark Udall’s Office
400 Rood Avenue
Grand Junction
(meet in front of Federal Building, 402 Rood Avenue)

Contact: Kelly Sloan

Pueblo
The Union Depot
132 West B Street
Pueblo

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP has more than 800,000 members, including members in all 50 states, and 25 state chapters. More than 55,000 Americans in all 50 states have made a financial investment in AFP or AFP Foundation. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org

# # #

Free-markets: how to fix health care

by Brian Schwartz | 2:00 pm, December 14, 2009

From Reason.tv:
Make no mistake about it. Health care reform is coming. But what’s the best way to fix our health care system, which is an inefficient, complicated mess of private actors, third-party payers, public subsidies, and innumerable state and federal regulations? Should we place our faith in the government or in the free market?
ObamaCare supporters argue [...]

2010 Budget Appropriations: Damn The Recession, Full Spending Ahead

by Julian Dunraven | 1:51 pm, December 14, 2009

[Guest Post submitted by actuary Rich Bratten.  You can follow Mr. Bratten on Twitter under AskTheActuary or visit his page at http://governmentunderground.com] This weekend Congress will vote to approve the final pieces of our country’s discretionary spending budget for fiscal Year 2010. Discretionary spending is all of the spending that Congress “appropriates” each year that [...]

Need a Gift for that Special Someone?

by Jon Caldara | 12:47 pm, December 14, 2009

Our unbelievable cartoonist Ben Hummel has been cranking out great work for us for almost two years now. Unlike my days as a cartoonist drawing my strip called B Street, Ben can actually draw, spell, and be funny. It’s almost like Ben is the Kyle Orton to my Jay Cutler. Anyway, he’s [...]

Climate Change Fanatics Growing More Open about Anti-Liberty Agenda

by Ben DeGrow | 9:16 am, December 14, 2009

Update, 10:15 AM: Good luck getting someone like Mr. Tidwell to confront the fallout from Climategate, including this revelation from one of the lead authors of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who said: “The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be [...]

Obama’s Back Door Route to Gun Control

by Rich Bratten | 8:21 am, December 14, 2009

Just When You Thought It Was Safe
In the beginning I was willing to give Obama a chance.  Now, I am more and more convinced that he is much worse than simply being the the farthest left Senator in Congress with virtually zero experience at anything other than positioning himself to be president.  He is even [...]

Longshot prediction about Obama and Copenhagen

by Rossputin | 4:45 am, December 14, 2009

OK, even if I were a betting man (which I am, actually) I wouldn’t bet a lot on this longshot prediction, but here it is:

Barack Obama delayed his visit to the Copenhagen Climate Summit from December 9 to December 18, the last scheduled day of the conference.  He used a rather tortured excuse that there was “progress” happening at the talks (which seems to be anything but the case).  Since then, he’s added the more reasonable explanation that other world leaders would be there at the event’s end.  The Administration likely also believes that if an agreement is close to being achievable at the end, his very presence might be enough to push the ball over the goal line.

The talks are already having a lot of trouble, with poor nations demanding more ransom from richer nations.  The article notes that “Rich nations want to require developing nations to limit emissions, with or without financial help.”  This is of course asking poor nations for economic and literal suicide as CO2 emissions correlate extremely highly with both GDP and life expectancy.  Poor nations are smart to refuse such a demand, though they’re shortsightedly stupid for wanting to agree to a cash payment in compensation for curbing their own economic and industrial development.  Cash payments can (and will) end at any time.  But one can’t suddenly make up for years of retarded development.  The poor nations’ most rational response would be to take the money and NOT slow down development.  However, if they believe that’s not possible, they should refuse the money and continue to try to develop as rapidly as possible.  That said, these countries generally have corrupt governments, so it’s not really about money going to those countries’ citizens, but into the despots’ Swiss bank accounts.  Therefore, they will work hard to get to a deal that pays them something.  With luck, ClimateGate will prevent such a deal from becoming reality.

Here’s my prediction:  The talks will be so far from having any agreement that the Administration will manufacture a mini-emergency which requires Obama’s presence in Washington, DC.  Obama can’t afford another foreign affairs failure, continuing his string of such failures.  Particularly on an issue where he has so much personal and political capital at stake.  He’ll send his apologies to Copenhagen, note that Lisa Jackson has offered a very high-level US presence, and stay away from a photo op at a deservedly-failed attempt by anti-capitalists and Third World nations to extort “climate debt” money from American taxpayers.  The event’s failure will still hurt Obama but not as much as if he attended on the last day.

Hey, if canceling an appearance at Copenhagen is good enough for Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, it should be good enough for Nobel Prize winner Barack Obama.  (Tangent: It’s true that Obama hasn’t done anything to win the award, but at least he didn’t win for an outright lie like Gore did.  It’s too bad the Nobel Peace Price has become nothing but a popularity award of Socialist International.)

 

Support Allen West for Congress (FL-22)

by Rossputin | 4:36 am, December 14, 2009

H/T John Sampson

I just saw Allen West’s stump speech and immediately contributed to his campaign.

I’d like to suggest you watch the video and consider a contribution of your own.  If we had a few hundred people like this in Congress, our nation would be far better off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M

.

Link to learn more about Allen West: http://allenwestforcongress.com

Link to donate: https://www.completecampaigns.com/public.asp?name=West&page=1

Proposed one-year moratorium on new Colorado insurance mandates

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, December 14, 2009

Remember, mandated benefits in insurance plans are hidden taxes. They force you to pay for benefits that you may not want or need, and effectively force you to subsidize other people’s insurance. From the Denver Business Journal:

Colorado businesses could get a one-year reprieve from new health-insurance coverage mandates that insurers say are driving up the [...]

Scott McInnis on Eminent Domain

by Ari Armstrong | 12:21 am, December 14, 2009

In the comments to my recent post about Dan Maes, “Mike” reminded me about a proposal to expand military lands around Piñon Canyon.

Lynn Bartels writes for the December 10 Denver Post, “Republicans opposed to the military’s Piñon Canyon expansion project are disappointed that property rights weren’t addressed when party leaders unveiled a new platform and rallied around gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis.”

Here is how the Post’s article summarizes the issue: “The Army wants to [expand] its 235,000-acre Piñon Canyon training maneuver area by almost 100,000 acres. The Army has promised to acquire the land only from a willing seller or through a long-term lease, but landowners in the impacted areas in southeastern Colorado fear their property will be seized, adversely-affected or the military will eventually want even more land.”

It is important, then, to distinguish between expansion of the military lands and the use of eminent domain. Property rights do not always protect the owner from being “adversely affected.” For instance, unless you live in an HOA that controls for such things, your neighbor might paint his house an ugly color, park ugly cars in front, and otherwise do things that incidentally reduce the value of your property. So we must limit the discussion to actual violations of property rights, such as the use of eminent domain to forcibly seize property from those unwilling to voluntarily sell it.

According to State Representative Steve King, McInnis said the government “is no longer threatening eminent domain in the Piñon Canyon expansion.” Apparently, then, McInnis’s support of the project assumed that eminent domain would not be used.

However, the Fifth Amendment states that private property may be taken for public use for just compensation. Do McInnis’s critics wish to claim that government ought never use eminent domain, even though the Constitution explicitly authorizes it? That’s my position, but I think McInnis’s critics need to detail their views. If Republicans are going to beat up their candidates for considering eminent domain for an obviously public use, that’s a high bar, and one that should be set intentionally rather than as a pretext for partisan attacks.

Another comment by McInnis on the matter is more troubling. According to the Post, McInnis said, “Balancing the deep need that Colorado has for quality jobs with the rights of Piñon Canyon property owners requires leadership and dialogue.”

I believe that property rights should be consistently protected, not “balanced” against some alleged need to forcibly seize property for somebody else to use. I would be interested to learn if McInnis’s Republican critics believe that eminent domain should be abolished across the board, or if they merely want to restrict the practice to somebody else’s property.

In the meantime, it would be helpful if McInnis would further clarify his views on eminent domain and property rights.

Liberty In the Books

by Ari Armstrong | 4:26 pm, December 13, 2009

With Amanda Teresi I co-moderate Denver’s Liberty In the Books, a monthly reading group that discusses free-market literature.

I strongly recommend that others around the country start up their own free-market discussion groups. I believe that our nation is at a crossroads and that advocates of liberty need to step forward and articulate the case for economic freedom. One critical element of effective free-market activism is familiarity with relevant economic principles and history. Participants in a discussion group can help educate each other as well as offer support and encouragement for free-market activism. With that goal in mind, here I describe how the Denver group functions and what we’re reading.

Please note that I cannot personally evaluate or endorse other reading groups that might use my recommendations or discussion notes. Thus, potential participants are strongly encouraged to independently investigate any other group claiming to use discussion notes for Liberty In the Books. Amanda owns the rights to the name, “Liberty In the Books.” I own the copyright to any material I write about the group or about selected readings. Thus, whether you use the name “Liberty In the Books” is between you and Amanda. I suggest you pick a unique name for your group and perhaps say something the the effect that you follow the Liberty In the Books model, without claiming any formal ties or endorsement. Groups are free to distribute my review questions at will, so long as no claim is made that I endorse any group other than my own.

If you have an interest in starting an economic liberty reading group in your area, how should you proceed?

The first thing to do is to refine your purpose. Amanda and I decided to focus on the relationship between economic theory and history. Thus, the complete title of our group is “Liberty In the Books: Economics In Action.” I do NOT want to discuss the arcane debates between the Austrian and Chicago schools. I do NOT want to discuss the finer points of Austrian praxeology versus positivism. I do NOT want to discuss libertarian anarchism versus the minimal state. (I’ll discuss such things elsewhere, but not in this group.) Instead, the purpose of the group is to learn about the application of basic free-market principles to modern and historical political policies. It is a “political economy” group in the traditional sense of that term.

So far the Denver group has read the following works:
* Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, Moral Health Care vs. ‘Universal Health Care’”
* Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man
* Thomas Sowell, The Housing Boom and Bust
* Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson
* Alex Epstein, “Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company”

Later I’ll post discussion questions for works the Denver group has read. (I’ll use the blog label “Liberty In the Books.”)

Your group needs clear leadership. Amanda and I co-moderate the Denver group, and our decisions regarding the group are final. You might opt for a more democratic structure (though I think that may invite pointless and time-wasting debate). I choose the readings for our group in consultation with Amanda. (Obviously I’m open to suggestions from other members.) Another discussion group I’m in selects readings by informal, mutual agreement.

After you decide to start a group, you need to get members. You might want to start a very small group among friends. In that case, you can simply contact your interested friends and set up meeting times. Otherwise you can advertise for the group via existing activist networks in your area.

Another reading group I participate with, the Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups, successfully advertised for members with Facebook ads. You can also issue media releases and post your information on public calendars.

How should you handle membership? I’ve now participated in three Colorado discussion groups, and I’ve experienced no problem with troublesome members. Instead, I’ve really enjoyed getting to know others from the community and discussing important ideas with them. Nevertheless, I do think it’s important to have membership guidelines, just in case you need to ask a disruptive participant to leave.

I endorse the Atlas guidelines: “The goal of the group is to better understand [the reading material] in a friendly and constructive way, not to engage in acrimonious debate or proselytizing.”

Following are the guidelines I sent to the Liberty In the Books membership:

The purpose of Liberty in the Books: Economics in Action is to provide a fun forum for free-market advocates to discuss economic principles and history and their application to the important issues of the day, with the goal that members will be better able to publicly articulate the case for free markets.

Members should strive to regularly attend meetings and read the selections. Readings generally will run less than 100 pages per month and will cover various areas of policy as well as basic economic principles. Some readings will be available online, others through special reproduction rights acquired by the event’s organizers. Occasionally members will need to purchase a book, which typically will provide readings for several meetings.

In order to keep the discussions interesting and topical, members should focus their comments on the reading material, though of course they may draw upon additional information that sheds light on the readings.

The group assumes a general support of free markets, enabling members to discuss matters of history and economics in greater detail than would be possible if members fundamentally disagreed about economic liberty. While membership is open, the moderators may, at their discretion, limit discussion that falls outside the purpose of the group.

While the group will discuss economics in history and theory, discussion should not assume any prior, specialized knowledge of history, economics, or policy, other than what is provided by the selected reading material. Discussion should remain accessible to any intelligent layperson familiar with the reading material, rather than veer into highly technical issues of interest only to a few.

While the moderators welcome feedback and advice from members, the moderators’ decisions pertaining to Liberty In the Books are final. Moderators may, at their discretion, begin with a short presentation, invite outside discussion leaders, establish other parameters for discussion, ask disruptive members to leave, alter the location or time of meetings, change future reading selections, and in other ways guide the group.

Members are the guests of the club’s organizers, who will strive to make Liberty In the Books consistently fun, inspiring, and informative.

Where to meet? If you are meeting with a small group of friends, where everyone knows each other well, you can meet at someone’s home. However, if you plan to start a larger group with more open membership, I strongly encourage you to meet at a public location, such as a bookstore, library, or coffee shop. I’ve found that Borders Books is often particularly open to reading groups. The Denver group meets for two hours. Meetings of 1.5 hours also work well, and longer meetings may suit your group’s needs, though you’ll need to plan for a break.

To organize meetings, I suggest a Google group or a comparable method of communicating with members. (Make sure you get somebody’s permission to add them to a such a group.) You need to set a reliable meeting location in advance (and check on the location close to the meeting), assign the reading material, and send out review questions and any other related notes.

How should the moderator conduct the meeting? I basically serve as the moderator for the Denver group, in collaboration with Amanda. You might want to ask for volunteers to help moderate.

The moderator has two key roles: start and end the meeting on time, and keep the discussion focussed on the reading material. The moderator must use some discretion in deciding when to cut off tangents. Obviously a major goal of the group is to apply knowledge of history and economics to modern problems, so discussion is bound to stray from the reading material at times. However, a meeting that constantly veers off track into marginal (or heated) debates or unrelated topics will tend to alienate the better members.

The moderator should strive to get everyone involved in the discussion without making anyone feel pressured to talk when the person would rather just listen.

A meeting that devolves into rancorous debate between two or three participants is a disaster.

I have found that, unless a reading group consists of friends who know each other and the reading material well, discussion questions form the basis of an effective meeting.

I write the review questions for Liberty In the Books. Diana Hsieh writes excellent review questions for the Atlas groups.

The moderator should be guided by the review questions without being bound by them. The goal is NOT to cover every single question and to spend the same amount of time per question. Rather, the moderator should use the questions to get the discussion started and keep it basically connected to the reading material. Some questions are more important than others, and some questions can be omitted from the discussion.

Moderating a good discussion group is an art. A good moderator is sort of like a good pilot; passengers usually only focus on what the moderator is doing when the flight gets bumpy. Your job is to keep the discussion going smoothly and to point out the nice views.

Participating in a local free-market discussion group can be enormously rewarding. You can deeply enrich your knowledge of economics and history. You can find motivation — and motivate others — to actively promote economic liberty. And you can make and maintain important friendships. If you are not already part of a reading group in your area, why not join an existing group or start one yourself?

Realizing Freedom by Tom Palmer

by Brian T. Schwartz | 12:34 am, December 13, 2009

If you’re interested in defending free markets, I highly recommend listening to or watching Tom Palmer’s talk about his new book, Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice at a Cato Institute book forum last week. Tyler Cowen’s comments about it are also worthwhile.

The event and book sites linked above …

Damn The Recession, Full Spending Ahead

by Rich Bratten | 11:40 pm, December 12, 2009

Damn The Recession, Full Spending Ahead

This weekend Congress will vote to approve the final pieces of our country’s discretionary spending budget for fiscal Year 2010. Discretionary spending is all of the spending that Congress “appropriates” each year that is not already mandatory such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, interest on the debt, [...]

Memo to National GOP: Wake Up and FIGHT the Obama Care Travesty

by Ben DeGrow | 1:41 pm, December 12, 2009

Over at Red State, Erick Erickson outlines what Senate Republicans should be doing right now and in the coming days to slow down the anti-liberty Obama Care beast opposed by most Americans.
Among many others, Erick makes this salient point:
If the Republicans want the news media to cover what they are doing to educate the American [...]

Support your local UFCW!

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 10:12 am, December 12, 2009

From today’s Denver Post editorial page:

Sometimes the answer is all too simple.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 8:55 am, December 12, 2009

Some thoughts on Copenhagen, ClimateGate, and Carlin (not George)

by Rossputin | 4:13 am, December 12, 2009

For today’s reading, may I offer my Human Events article about recent (and not as recent) events in the debate surrouding climate change:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34785

Mandatory insurance is unconstitutional

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

Excerpts from a new article (its summary) co-authored by Randy E. Barnett, Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown U.:
An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party is literally unprecedented, not just in scope but in kind, and unconstitutional either as a matter of first [...]

Friday’s Funny

by Jon Caldara | 4:59 pm, December 11, 2009

© 2008, Benjamin Hummel. To see more cartoons like this go to www.politixcartoons.com.

Beat Army – Go Navy

by Mr. Bob | 11:06 am, December 11, 2009

#gonavy #beatarmy #soldier
While I have a favorite in tomorrows football game and like to poke fun at Army football, My cover is off to all them for what they do. (click on the pick for full size version)

Great Video must see for all those who love America and freedom

Tea Partiers Get Partisan

by Ari Armstrong | 10:46 am, December 11, 2009

I liked the Tea Parties better when they were about issues, not partisan politics.

Yesterday I received the following e-mail:

Defend the Republic Rally

Saturday, December 12th from 1:00 to 2:00pm

Colorado State Capital Building – West Steps
Colfax & Lincoln
Denver, CO 80203

Northern Colorado Tea Party is encouraging all supporters to attend this rally. We are asking for a voice in the debate taking place regarding the 2010 elections. If we want the GOP to listen to us, we need to show them we are a political force to be reckoned with here in Colorado.

As the war between the United State of America and the Progressives in both political parties continues to wage, the Tea Party and 912 supporters have stepped up and answered the call of duty.

Let us stand together at the State Capital on Saturday, united to make one single statement:

Principle Over Party in 2010

Speakers will include:

Mike Holler – Author of The Constitution Made Easy
Lu Busse – Leadership Chair for Co 912 Project
Dan Maes – Candidate for Colorado Governor
Tea Party & 912 Activists

See the Denver Post article by Jessica Fender or the People’s Press Collective review by Michael Sandoval for more background.

So the complaint is that Republican leaders have endorsed a candidate who might actually be able to win. I’m confused as to why this is some sort of grand sin. Anybody who thinks Dan Maes has any chance of winning the Republican primary and beating Bill Ritter is simply delusional.

(For the record, I’m registered unaffiliated, so I’ll have no vote in the GOP primary. I have yet to decide whether any candidate in the governor’s race will get my vote as the lesser of evils. I voted for Ritter last time around.)

As somebody who has attended, written about, and spoken at various Tea Party and related events, I have to wonder about this overtly partisan turn of the Northern Tea Party. I thought this was about issues, not parties. I thought it was about liberty, not personality.

I challenge those organizing the December 12 rally to articulate their ideological differences with Scott McInnis, and their ideological affinity with Dan Maes. I must frankly question the motives of those unable or unwilling to do so. Please leave a comment or respond via e-mail.

Rasmussen: Norton, Buck both lead Bennet, Romanoff in CO Senate polling

by Rossputin | 10:07 am, December 11, 2009

A Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday shows former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton with a sizeable advantage over incumbent junior Senator Michael “Who?” Bennet and over Bennet’s Democratic primary challenger, former Speaker of the State House of Representatives, Andrew Romanoff.  Norton leads Bennet by 9 points and Romanoff by 11.

The poll also shows Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck with small leads over either Democrat, 4 over Bennet and 2 over Romanoff.

Former State Senator Tom Wiens shows a 1 point advantage over either Democrat.

Bennet has very high “unfavorables”, not least because he is an utter lap dog for the Obama Administration, with Coloradoans not on board: “Forty-five percent (45%) of voters in the state favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, while 55% are oppose it. Those numbers included 25% who strongly favor the plan and 46% who strongly oppose it.”

 

One More Reason to Oppose Latest Obama Care, Attend Code Red Rally

by Ben DeGrow | 8:56 am, December 11, 2009

So you’re not convinced that the new Harry Reid Senate health care “compromise” is bad news for your health care freedom and the nation’s fiscal sanity? Need a reason to show up during lunchtime next Tuesday, December 15, at the Code Red Health Care rally in your city, and speak your mind to our U.S. [...]

Inconsistency Exploited

by Justin Longo | 8:23 am, December 11, 2009

I feel bad for minarchists / delusional limited government lovers / constitutionalists / whatever you want to call them. Because when you don’t apply first principles fully and to their logical conclusions, you are forced to bite many bullets — bullets that an intelligent leftist can easily exploit. Let me give you a simple example. [...]

Are federal health insurance mandates constitutional?

by Rob Natelson | 8:17 am, December 11, 2009

There have been some on-line discussions recently of whether a federal mandate that individuals obtain health insurance would violate the U.S. Constitution. This issue is distinct from the issue of whether other sorts of government health programs – such as single-payer – would be constitutional.

It is also distinct from whether states can impose insurance mandates.  They can:  [...]

A modest movement toward fiscal responsibility in the Senate?

by Rossputin | 4:57 am, December 11, 2009

I don’t frequently congratulate Democrat Senator Mark Udall, but his annoucement on Wednesday that he is “cosponsoring legislation to create a special commission to find ways to bring down the nation’s debt” as well as working to implement a presidential line-item veto are welcome news.

Udall also said he will not support increasing the debt limit until a plan is in place whereby the Senate can at least be led to the trough of fiscal responsibility.  This is an especially large threat against his own party leadership given stories that Harry Reid wants to increase the limit by $1.8 TRILLION now so that they don’t have to act again on the debt limit before the 2010 elections.  As the Politico notes, $1.8 trillion is “nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.”

A sudden interest in spending reductions by a handful of Democrats and Republicans working together may also embolden health care “reform” fence-sitters like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson to vote against the Reid-Pelosi-Obama plan, whether it comes down with a “public option” or some other mechanism which represents a distinction without a difference.

According to a press release by Senator Udall’s office:

Under the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009, an 18-member commission would review the entire federal budget and make recommendations for long-term fiscal sustainability, with specific spending cuts, program changes, and a mandate that Congress vote on those recommendations.

The commission would be made up of the Treasury Secretary, another appointee from the Administration, and 16 lawmakers – eight currently serving Democrats, and eight currently serving Republicans. Before any recommendations could be submitted to Congress, 14 of the 18 members would be required to sign off. Both the commission’s report would be due and congressional action required soon after the November 2010 elections, so as to take as much political posturing out of the process as possible. Congress would then take an up-or-down vote on the recommendations without amendments. Final passage would require a 3/5 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

As he is a liberal Democrat, Udall can’t get everything right. In his speech on the Senate floor, he said that part of the cause of the deficit was “tax cuts that did not grow the economy”. Of course, that’s utterly false, not to mention the fact that the government does not have an inherent right to your money; cutting taxes versus raising taxes are not morally equivalent, regardless of your opinion of the economic effect.

I don’t love the commission being so political, with no participants who are not elected politicians or direct employes of an elected politician.  But the idea is a step in the right direction, not least for reminding Democratic leadership that not all members of their caucus are eager to see their political futures ended by big spending, high taxes, and a complete lack of understanding that the American people really are fiscally conservative.

Denver Health code red health care rallies: Tuesday, December 15, 11:45 AM

by Brian Schwartz | 11:12 pm, December 10, 2009

Here’s your final chance to tell your Senators in D.C. what you think of the so-called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590). Do you want politicians to penalize people for not buying politically-corect insurance — as they they define it? Do you want mandatory insurance, which outlaws affordable health insurance Do you want [...]

« 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