Michael Bennet Kowtows to Left, Casts Losing Vote for Backdoor Card Check

by Ben DeGrow | 9:02 am, February 10, 2010

Update, 2:45 PM: Politico picks up on the story, too, noting that Bennet’s vote “could have significant repercussions for his election campaign.”
A strong sign that Colorado’s Appointed One, junior U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, is feeling the primary heat from Andrew Romanoff. Kowtowing to President Obama, the SEIU and Big Labor: Bennet was one of the [...]

Who’s purchasing government

by Amy Oliver | 6:32 am, February 10, 2010

Imagine knowing who or what organizations are giving gifts in the form or grants or donations to the state of Colorado?  Taxpayers may want to send a thank you card.  As of right now, taxpayers don’t have access to that information unless they do some serious research. 
State Representative Amy Stephens  is trying to fix that. [...]

Top 10 Reasons Why Both Parties Are in Tea Party Hot Water – #9

by Lu Busse | 6:21 am, February 10, 2010

This is Day 2 of a 10-part installment. 9. Both Parties are looking for ways to use Tea Party movement. Rather than listening to and trying to understand this collection of voters, most of both parties’ power players are trying to use the Tea Party movement to advance their own agenda. Republican Party leaders in Colorado and [...]

Democrats and taxes: Do you see the trend yet?

by Rossputin | 5:20 am, February 10, 2010

In Colorado, the Democratic leadership of the General Assembly is voting to increase taxes on or remove tax exemptions on candy, soda, direct mail advertising, fertilizer, energy, software, and more.  And, it seems the State Senate Democrats want to be the tip of the spear in trying to collect sales (or use) tax on items that residents of the state purchase from out-of-state online retailers.

They seem oblivious…not even willing to discuss…the Republicans modest proposal for a 0.25% spending cut for the balance of this fiscal year and a 4.4% across-the-board cut next year – cuts which would not only eliminate the need for all of the Democrats’ tax hikes but also allow the senior homestead exemption (a property tax break for senior citizens that I don’t actually support) to remain in place.

Meanwhile, in Washington State, Democrats in their State Senate (where they also have a large majority, like in Colorado) have voted to ignore Washington’s equivalent of TABOR which passed a vote of the people just over two years ago in order to pass their own tax hikes.  As one Washington Republican put it (speaking presumably of the State Senate as controlled by Democrats, not of Republicans), “We’ll be telling the people to shut up and pay up, and we know what’s best.”

While Washington Senators got one bill right, a measure aimed at saving about $45 million by “by restricting hiring, service contracting, out-of-state travel and larger equipment purchases, with some exceptions“, their true colors came through with a bill which would freeze pay raises for state workers who are not union members…but not freeze raises for unionized workers.  And you wonder who the Democrats really work for…

The behavior of Democrats at the state level is a reflection of the leadership of their party at the federal level, namely of The One, the Dear Leader, Barack Obama, who during his State of the Union Address said that he would “refuse to pass this problem (of massive deficits and debt) on to another generation of Americans” and then promptly offered the most profligate, wasteful, irresponsible, deficits-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see budget in our nation’s history.  His so-called spending freeze is laughable, as what it really does is lock in unjustifiable increases in government spending which occurred in his first two years in office (as well as unforgivable spending increases put in place by George W. Bush.)

It comes down to two main things:  Democrats NEVER want to see the amount of money which flows through government decrease because they never want the power of government to decrease…and money is power.  Also, Democrats never want to cut spending on government workers because such a large percentage of government workers is unionized and those unions in turn spend a lot of money getting Democrats elected.  Indeed, in the past couple of weeks we learned that for the first time in American history the number of unionized government workers exceeded the number of unionized private sector workers.  (The percentage of unionized government workers has been much higher than the private sector number for a long time because the government work force is smaller than the private sector’s.  But who knows how long even that will be true given the trajectory that Big Government Obama is on?)

Democrats across the nation – perhaps in the state legislatures even more than inside the Beltway if you can imagine it – are pushing ahead with a radical “Progressive” agenda that will doom them to electoral destruction in November.  A Gallup poll released Tuesday shows that Independent voters prefer Republicans over Democrats by a 16-point margin, the second-highest in recent months and, more importantly, the second-highest in years.  For comparison, during 2006, Independents preferred Democrats to Republicans by an average of about 20 points.

 

Just as relevant is voter enthusiasm.  More than half of Republicans or those leaning Republican are more enthusiastic about voting in 2010 than in prior recent elections while a plurality of Democrats or Democrat-leaners are less enthusiastic:

American elections are all about Independent voters now with more and more citizens giving up party affiliation.  First they left the GOP in droves, now they’re leaving the Democrats in droves.

And that’s a good thing.  It would be healthy for America if more people started voting based on ideas, principles, and characteristics of individual candidates rather than voting for the “R” or “D” after the candidate’s name.

Americans do have, despite the beliefs and wishes of The One, a belief in the fundamental principles of our Founding, in personal responsibility, in limited government, in federalism, and in American exceptionalism.  It’s time we start electing politicians at the state and federal levels who believe in the same things.  While those people are more likely to be found in the GOP than among Democrats, we must be open to the occasional “conservative” Democrat.  More importantly, however, is we must beware of “Progressive” Republicans who are nothing but Democrats in sheep’s clothing and, like any infiltrator, more dangerous than the easily seen uniformed member of the enemy’s army.

AP: “Canadian official seeks heart surgery in US”

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, February 10, 2010

A reminder that universal health coverage does not mean you get the medical care you need.  From the Associated Press, Feb. 5:
ST. JOHN’S, Newfoundland — The premier of Canada’s east coast province is undergoing heart surgery in the United States this week because the treatment he is seeking was not available in his home province.
The [...]

Ken Buck backs balanced budget amendment

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:45 pm, February 9, 2010

There is no way a balanced budget amendment would ever be approved, but Republicans seem compelled to make promises they can’t seem to keep. Such an amendment makes no sense for the Federal government, which needs the flexibility to go into debt in times of war and during recessions and depressions. Unfortunately, Presidents Bush and Obama and Congressional Democrats have misused the power to put the country deeply into debt, and the Republicans’ equally irresponsible balanced budget amendment movement is in reaction to that. Ken Buck announced his support for a balanced budget amendment. It makes no sense to me. His press release is below the jump:

“One Sweet Fundraiser” for Clear The Bench Colorado

by CTBC Director | 11:33 pm, February 9, 2010

Still looking for just the right sweets for your sweetie? 
Looking to stock up on your favorite dessert(s), and support a great cause at the same time?
This may be your last opportunity to enjoy a Valentine’s Day before the “Candy Tax” becomes law – so make the most of it, AND learn more about how the [...]

Tolerance gone wild

by Al Maurer | 9:43 pm, February 9, 2010

Toleration should not be mindlessness

Health insurers’ stocks have plunged since Senator Scott Brown’s election

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:18 pm, February 9, 2010

The stocks of health insurers have plunged since Jan. 19 not only because the over all market has faded but also because Congressional Democrats and President Obama appear to be looking for ways to punish insurers because the politicians couldn’t sell a bad health insurance reform bill to voters. Note that Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) won his election on Jan. 19, taking away the Democrats’ super majority in the U.S. Senate and killing the versions of ObamaCare that had passed the Senate and House.
Obviously, a lot of speculators thought, incorrectly I think, that the insurers would have profited from ObamaCare’s requirement that individuals would be forced to buy health insurance. If the mandates had passed, the politicians would have found ways to take all of the profit and then some out of the new business they would have handed to the insurers.
Here are charts for AET, CI, CVH, HS, HUM, UNH, WLP, and the exchange traded health funds, XLV, IYH and VHT. Click on a chart for more information.

What the Republicans might propose at the health summit with President Obama

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:43 pm, February 9, 2010

Republicans are trying to decide whether to take on President Obama in his proposed health summit. They have some good ideas for reforming health care and health insurance markets, but their talking points don’t deal with some of the most controversial issues in the House and Senate bills. Those issues are mandates that everyone buy health insurance or pay a fine or go to jail, what to do about the ways insurers deny insurance to people with pre-existing medical conditions and how to reduce the number of people who file for bankruptcy when they are hit by catastrophic medical bills that they haven’t insured or have under insured.
There are ways around individual mandated benefits, pre-existing conditions, medical bankruptcy that Republicans should like and should present to Obama and the Democrats:
1. Drop the unworkable and unconstitutional provisions that address these issues from the Senate and House bills.
2. Authorize but don’t require insurers to charge people who self-insure until they get sick 120% of what would have been their monthly premiums for the number of years needed to make the insurer whole on the cost of the type of illness involved. Means test it. Include provisions for 5- 30-year mortgage-type paybacks. If the uninsureds have assets, require them to sell those assets to pay their insurance bills, not file for bankruptcy. Come up with a win-win scheme for patient, insurer, providers.
3. Revise bankruptcy laws so freeriders can’t continue gaming the system. Make people who didn’t buy insurance or real insurance go on payment plans to pay their bills. Medical bankruptcy is the easy way out for bad decision making. While some medical bankruptcies are legitimate, I think a lot of them are filed by people who just don’t like buying health insurance or paying their medical bills. Somehow, Congress has to fix the laws so that only those who should file for bankruptcy because of medical bills can do so. Everyone else should be forced to pay their bills over time rather than shift their medical costs to people who buy health insurance.
4. States should revise health insurance laws to reduce expensive mandates, allow the sale of catastrophic medical insurance, not pre-paid preventive and wellness care plans, which don’t save money long-term as advertised. Stop making wellness and preventive services providers rich by mandating coverage of their services.
5. Individuals and small business owners who buy health insurance in the individual insurance markets should get the same income tax credits as employers that pay part or all of the health insurance premiums for their workers.
6. Delete the pork and bribes in the Senate and House bills and let a health reform bill stand on its merits.
P.S. Back in the early 1980s, I wrote editorials for Modern Healthcare advocating mandated benefits that would be enforced by the IRS. I now realize such mandates would be unconstitutional and virtually unworkable.
I posted a more tightly written and less-than-perfectly-edited version of those ideas in Politico’s “Arena” this morning. Guest contributors get a limited amount of space for their contributions. So I’ve fleshed this out a bit. Regular contributors to Arena almost never comment on what we guests have to say. But Steve Steckler, chairman and founder, Infrastructure Management Group (IMG), had some nice words to say about my contribution:
While I’m at it, let me commend guest contributor Donald Johnson today for his excellent ideas on alternatives to some challenging health care reform issues. Mr. Johnson, we need a lot more Americans thinking as constructively as you are today and a lot fewer shouting their public option or single-payer chant.
Thank you Mr. Steckler. I also think you offered some constructive ideas:
 

Why Government Monopolies Are Bad

by Jon Caldara | 4:26 pm, February 9, 2010

Solid video from the Cato Institute starring the famous Izzy Santa. Makes you wonder why the left, who routinely criticizes the competitive behavior of businesses competing in the marketplace, have absolutely no problem with government monopolies — which are far more harmful.

Scott McInnis, Dan Maes call for replacing 4 justices on Colorado Supreme Court

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 4:00 pm, February 9, 2010

The four members of Colorado’s state Supreme Court must be denied retention in next November’s elections because they are enabling Governor Bill Ritter—with the support of Denver Mayor John Hickenloopper—to raise taxes without going to voters for approval as required under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), Republican gubernatorial candidates, Scott McInnis and Dan Maes, said today at a joint appearance before a Cherry Creek Republican Women luncheon.
“Change the Supreme Court,” McInnis declared, adding, “They’ve given the legislature the green light” to raise taxes and go around TABOR.  
“I have heard both candidates talk about the Supreme Court elections, but never as much as today,” said Matt Arnold, director of Clear the Bench Colorado. He has been campaigning against the four justices almost as hard as individual candidates for governor and the U.S. Senate have been campaigning for office. 
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers recently announced that he opposes the retention of Chief Judge Mary Mullarkey and judges

Why hasn’t Sen. Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund jumped into Colorado’s GOP senate primary?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 3:48 pm, February 9, 2010

The Senate Conservative Fund created by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is backing conservative Senate primary candidates around the country, but even though it’s watching Colorado’s Jane Norton, Ken Buck and Tom Wiens, it hasn’t shown its hand here. Why?
Is it because all of Colorado’s GOP candidates are basically on the same page on both fiscal and social issues? Is it because Jane Norton leads appointed Democrat Michael Bennet by 14 percentage points in the Rasmussen Reports poll? Is it because winning the Colorado seat is more important than making a minor statement in this state? Is it because Norton is doing such a good job of showing that she’s as conservative as any of the Tea Party, 9.12, R Block and other conservative Republican groups are? Is it because Buck and Wiens are having such a hard time raising serious money?

PETA’s “Fur-Out Love-In” Receives A Chilly Denver Reception

by elpresidente | 2:01 pm, February 9, 2010

Chilly as in February cold–it was around 24 degrees at noon (much colder in the shade)–and chilly as in, well, failure to draw a crowd (slightly NSFW, if people in their underwear is NSFW): PETA’s campaign and lack of “exposure” resulted in, well, less exposure than they hoped to garner. Two people in red underwear [...]

Rule One: If you can’t afford it, you can’t have it.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 1:48 pm, February 9, 2010

It is a familiar sight at the legislature.

Free Liquor Stores from Prohibition-Era Rules

by Ari Armstrong | 10:33 am, February 9, 2010

The following article originally was published February 7 by Colorado Daily.Free Colorado’s liquor stores from Prohibition-era rulesby Ari ArmstrongColorado unemployment rose back up to 7.5 percent in December. We remain in an economic slump. Gov. Bill…

Top 10 Reasons Why Both Parties Are in Tea Party Hot Water – #10

by Lu Busse | 7:30 am, February 9, 2010

Most politicians still do not realize Tea Party voters are angry with both major parties for many of the SAME reasons. Democrat and Republican players (pundits and most of media for that matter) do not see that We the People can look at the parties objectively, analyze, compare/contrast, and form our own insightful opinions. We [...]

Democrats shift Internet tax tactics

by Rossputin | 6:39 am, February 9, 2010

Democrats in the Colorado General Assembly have backed away from trying to tax Internet retailers based on whether they have “affiliates” in Colorado.  That approach, which would have said that if a Coloradoan had an ad for Amazon.com or Overstock.com on his web page, that would mean Colorado would deem Amazon.com and Overstock.com to be “doing business in” the state and therefore responsible to collect sales tax on items sold to Coloradoans.

The new version of HB 1193 says that if a retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax is part of a multi-chain corporation where one of the other chains does have a physical presence in the state, then other chains of the corporation are considered to be “doing business in this state.”  Then, if that out-of-state retailer sells a product (usually via the Internet) into Colorado, the retailer must tell the buyer that he owes sales or use tax.

The way I read it is, for example, that since Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s are owned by the same company and since Macy’s has stores in Colorado, this bill would argue that online purchases by Coloradoans from Bloomingdales (or other covered-by-this-law retailers) are subject to sales or use tax and that Bloomingdales will be required to:

First, tell its Colorado buyers that they owe sales or use tax and that the buyers have to file a sales or use tax return,

Second, the retailer will face a $5/incident for not telling the buyers they owe the tax

Third, the retailer will have to send “notification” to Colorado purchasers by January 31 of each year showing how much they bought from that retailer and that the buyer owes tax to the state on those purchases with a $10/incident penalty for not sending the notification,

Fourth, the retailer will file a compilation of all those notifications with the Colorado Department of Revenue, with a penalty of $10/purchaser for not filing

One State Senator I spoke with thinks this may be wrong because Macy’s doesn’t try to drive web traffic to Bloomingdale’s web site from their Macy’s stores, but I think the language is such that we would assume the Colorado Department of Revenue to try to enforce it in this way.

State Senator Greg Brophy says “This is not the camel’s nose under the tent.  This is the whole camel into the tent on the issue of taxing the Internet.”  Brophy believes that this bill will “set up the challenge at the Supreme Court over Internet taxation” and, going back to the camel metaphor, “we are going to have to see if SCOTUS will throw the smelly beast out.”  This would essentially be a rehearing of Quill v North Dakota, a 1992 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a retailer only had to charge sales tax if they had a physical presence in that state. It should be noted that for most sections of Quill, the Court’s verdict was unanimous.

The key to Quill is this concept from the decision:

(A) mail-order house may have the “minimum contacts” with a taxing State as required by the Due Process Clause and yet lack the “substantial nexus” with the State required by the Commerce Clause. These requirements are not identical, and are animated by different constitutional concerns and policies. Due process concerns the fundamental fairness of governmental activity, and the touchstone of due process nexus analysis is often identified as “notice” or “fair warning.” In contrast, the Commerce Clause and its nexus requirement are informed by structural concerns about the effects of state regulation on the national economy.

This gets very technical, but what the Court said is that even though the state’s attempt to impose a use tax might meet the burden of a “due process” test, that does not mean the tax is not an impermissible burden on interstate commerce.  It’s one of the few cases in recent years where you’ll see the Court at least implicitly recognize that the term “regulate” in the Constitution as it applies to interstate commerce meant “to make regular”, to keep from being burdened, etc., and NOT to be “regulated” in the sense that people use that word today, i.e. interfered with through regulation or law.

The Court also noted the value of stare decisis in terms of leaving business with some degree of regulatory certainty:

Indeed, it is not unlikely that the mail-order industry’s dramatic growth over the last quarter century is due in part to the bright-line exemption from state taxation created in (prior Supreme Court case) Bellas Hess… (T)he Bellas Hess rule has engendered substantial reliance and has become part of the basic framework of a sizable industry. The “interest in stability and orderly development of the law” that undergirds the doctrine of stare decisis…

The Court then went on to say that Congress could possibly change the impermissibility of requiring these sales or uses taxes by enacting federal legislation while hinting that such legislation might still end up being unconstitutional and that Congress might do itself a favor by respecting the Court’s opinion on this matter.

Legal counsel for Amazon.com believes HB1193 is inherently unconstitutional for other reasons, including a rather technical but important point that the enforcement provisions of the bill are “facially discriminatory against out-of-state retailers” who are faced with a different enforcement process than  in-state retailers. This lack of equal protection thus renders the measure unconstitutional, in his opinion.

Again, it’s worth emphasizing that the Quill decision was unanimous and that the decision was written by Justice Stevens.  It’s hard to imagine the “conservatives” on the Court siding with the state here and it’s hard to imagine the liberals on the Court saying that Stevens was wrong in 1992.  While anything can happen, HB1193 could end up being a blessing in disguise in that it could permanently end the possibility of states imposing sales and use taxes on items purchased from out-of-state retailers with no substantial “nexus” in-state.

As far as HB1193, Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry has an amusing take: “The legislators who vote for this will be among the first in the free world to push to tax the Internet, breaking a longstanding bipartisan consensus against the Internet levies since Al Gore invented it. I’m convinced that if the Democrats in Colorado would have been alive in the Stone Age, they would have pushed for a use tax on fire, a value added tax on the advent of the wheel, and a manufacturing tax on the chisel.”

HB1193 is an Orwellian nightmare, with the State of Colorado claiming that it can tell out-of-state companies to inform on Coloradoans.  Is this government “of, by, and for the people” or simply of, by, and for government and its lackies.  At some point, the many people who voted for our current Democratic state legislature majority are going to have to realize that Democrats are not “for the little guy” and are not even for “the voters”.  They are for unions and for amassing as much of your money and your constitutionally guaranteed power as possible for themselves.  Make no mistake: Just as with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on the federal level, our tax-hiking, big-spending Democrats in the state legislature are not just misguided; they are the enemy.

As I told Senator Brophy, the day I get a letter from the State of Colorado saying that I owe them sales tax on something I purchased online from an out-of-state retailer is the day I decide to move out of Colorado.  I guarantee I won’t be the only one.

Why Not Legalize ALL Marijuana?

by Jon Caldara | 6:15 am, February 9, 2010

Coloradans voted against legalization of marijuana in 2006 after approving it as a medicine in 2000. But now lawmakers are struggling with an upsurge in dispensaries and ill-defined “medical” users. How should public policly balance freedom, virtue, prudence, and practicality in dealing with this issue? Specifically, why not legalize all marijuana?
That question, [...]

Dem Priorities Fiddling with Tax Credits: Undercut, Don’t Empower, Families

by Ben DeGrow | 6:08 am, February 9, 2010

Todd Engdahl at Ed News Colorado reported Friday on two educational tax credit bills (HB 1295 and HB 1296) being introduced in the legislature, and closed with this comment:
While the proposals could make for interesting debate, they’re expected to fail for three reasons: 1) Democrats control the legislature, 2) the education lobby, and 3) most [...]

Colorado House Bill 1008: force men to pay higher insurance premiums

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, February 9, 2010

The Denver Post reports that Colorado “House Bill 1008 would bar health insurance companies from using gender as a basis for setting different premium rates for men and women.” Basically, insurers generally charge women higher premiums than men.  Supporters of the bill want to make this illegal, and hence require men to pay more.
The [...]

Frederic Bastiat: Must Read!

by Al Maurer | 11:04 pm, February 8, 2010

I am embarrassed to write that although I’ve heard about his analogy of the candlemakers’ guild, I’ve never actually read any of his works.  In reading The Law, I am happy to say I’ve corrected that.
There has been a renaissance in the reading of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in the past year and there deserves [...]

Rep. Jack Pommer Freaks Out

by RMR | 5:48 pm, February 8, 2010

New Blog

by Ari Armstrong | 5:33 pm, February 8, 2010

Please see the new blog at http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/.

I’ll use this FreeColorado.com URL to link to the new and archival material, display my Twitter feed and (hopefully) my new blog’s RSS feed, and so on.

Polls: Hickenlooper 49%, McInnis 45%; independents disapprove Obama, 57%, approve 29%; 75% angry

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 5:28 pm, February 8, 2010

The latest highly regarded Rasmussen Reports poll shows Democrat Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper leading former U.S. Rep. Republican Scott McInnis, 49% to 45%. Hickenlooper is the Democrats’ candidate for governor, and McInnis is the Republicans’ presumptive candidate even though Dan Maes still is contesting him for the GOP’s nomination.
A Marist poll shows 57% of independents disapprove of 

Obama Cuts Bush’s AIDS-HIV Treatment Money for Africa

by Mr. Bob | 1:30 pm, February 8, 2010

#breitbart #tcot #HIV #AIDS #PPC
Freeze on HIV spending sparks concern in Africa

Must read article, the tone-deafness isn’t just here in the US, apparently this administration is clueless on all fronts. This is one thing that of course the left probably doesn’t even realize…Bush spent more on HIV treatment than any president in history. Whether you agree this is part of what the government should be doing or not, most people do not realize that he did this…that is because this is part of the news the MSN chooses NOT to print.

Best Superbowl Ad

by Jon Caldara | 1:22 pm, February 8, 2010

So what Audi’s message? Buy our enviro car, not because you care about the environment, but because it will keep the governmental enviro-nutjobs off your back.

A Lesson in Tax Policy for Children

by Jon Caldara | 12:38 pm, February 8, 2010

Here’s a pretty clever way to explain taxes that even I can understand…

The Big Bank Bailout Bill H.R. 4173 and the Committee for Truth in Politics

by Chuck Moe | 12:34 pm, February 8, 2010

You may have seen an this ad recently in Colorado (video and audio is bad)

Is the ad as FactCheck.org claims misleading? Technically, H.R. 4173 does give the Federal Reserve the ability to spend up to 4 trillion dollars as Bloomberg columnist David Reilly notes:
It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time…

Obama and Palin two peas in a pod, living the American dream

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:04 am, February 8, 2010

Obama and Palin give great speeches. He uses telepromters. She uses notes. They both appeal to gullibles.
Obama shouldn’t be president, and Palin never should be.
They’re living the American dream. Love it.
Tea Party folks are people who’ve been on the sidelines for decades. They’re motivated by fear. They’re afraid of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. They’re not nuts. They are just folks who have new priorities and the smarts to get involved when they have a chance to make a difference.
On health deform, Obama wants to continue the con, but Americans are on to him. They don’t like the way Washington works. They don’t trust anyone in Washington.
Obama’s floundering. In 2008, he was the Lakers. In 2010, he’s the Nets.
I originally posted this on Politico.com this morning.
 

« 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