DMYR June GENERAL MEETING, feat. Adam Schrager

by Brett Moore | 8:20 am, June 21, 2010

[ June 22, 2010; 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. ] Join DMYR June 22nd for our June General Meeting. This month we are pleased to welcome author and award-winning political reporter, Adam Schrager. He will be talking about his newest book, ” The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)”.

This is the inside story of one of the most stunning [...]

Numbers Don’t Back Norton Camp’s Attempt to Disparage SurveyUSA

by Ben DeGrow | 6:09 am, June 21, 2010

Colorado’s big political buzz since Sunday has revolved around the Denver Post / 9News / SurveyUSA polling on the gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races. The governor matchups pretty much reflect Rasmussen’s recently released results, but the latest poll also puts Scott McInnis at a 2-to-1 advantage over fellow Republican Dan Maes in head-to-head support for [...]

A few thoughts about “stimulus”

by Rossputin | 5:32 am, June 21, 2010

The other day on CNBC, I saw Larry Kudlow discussing the Democrats’ desire for a second “jobs bill” – what they’re calling “stimulus” now that “stimulus” is known to be ineffective union-boosting pork.

I sent Mr. Kudlow a few thoughts on the subject (and he was kind enough to respond that I was “dead right.”)

Here are those thoughts:

One thing I think is worth mentioning is how all of the jobs which are suggested to be saved by a proposed second “stimulus”/jobs measure, like teachers, cops, firemen, etc., are government employees…not just that, but state government employees.

Thus, this so-called stimulus is really just plugging holes in state budgets. Beyond its questionable legality, this has a bunch of other problems:

1) Since some states have worse budget problems than others, the effect of the legislation will be to transfer money from taxpayers in some states to taxpayers in other states, like from Indiana to California, from Maine to New York, etc.

2) The moral hazard problem is huge, removing pressure from states and municipalities to tighten their belts, feeling like they’re being seen as something like “too big to fail”.

3) Creating/saving government jobs adds to the long-term burden of the cost of government on the private sector in addition to increasing the power of public sector unions, one of the most destructive forces in the nation.

Political betting: Florida Senate race

by Rossputin | 4:36 am, June 21, 2010

Yesterday, I sold Charlie Crist “futures” on Intrade.com at 40%, meaning that I was risking $6 to win $4, betting that Crist would not win election in November.

There is a lot of chatter that Florida Democrats will back Crist if they believe the Democrat nominee can’t win as part of an “anyone but Rubio strategy.”

While that may sound fine to a few “big thinkers” in a room in Tallahassee, I simply don’t see how Democrats will motivate voters to get out and vote for a guy who represents everything that makes people sick to death of politicians.

Crist is a guy who has flipped his views on many major issues in the past few months, including teacher tenure reform and travel to Cuba in order to pander to Democrat voters.  But really, is his hug of Obama and his tremendous fake tan (as pointed out by my friend Keith) really going to get people to vote for a guy who so obviously stands for absolutely nothing other than his own aggrandizement?

I don’t think so.  If he goes much higher in the betting, I’ll sell more.

Markey won’t deliver answers

by Amy Oliver | 10:28 pm, June 20, 2010

Congresswoman Betsy Markey has time to play  UPS union member and get some TV face time:

But she has no time to answer constituent questions or questions from me.  Questions that I have posed to Markey’s office that have gone unanswered:

Before the Cap and Trade vote I sent several emails asking which way she was voting. [...]

U.S. border insecurity? No worries, it’s part of the plan

by Kelly Maher | 8:29 pm, June 20, 2010

At a recent town hall, U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., gave away the game — Pres. Obama’s game on immigration reform, that is.Kyl said the President told him at a private meeting in the Oval Office that, “‘The problem is…if we secure the border, then y…

A Note on Endorsements

by elpresidente | 6:24 pm, June 20, 2010

Many recent comments have referenced People’s Press Collective as having a collective perspective on candidates in particular races. From our guidelines to our contributors: PPC does not endorse specific candidates in primaries, out of respect to the varying views of contributors. If the PPC board chooses to endorse a specific candidate or candidates in the [...]

62 Percent of CO Hispanics Support Passing AZ Style Immigration Reform

by PerlStalker | 3:47 pm, June 20, 2010

The Denver Post and 9 News put out a series of polls about Colorado politics. There were a couple of interesting results that I’d like to share.

Coloradans support passing an Arizona-style immigration law 61 to 34. Even more interesting is that Color…

The Road to Serfdom: Despotism, Then and Now

by Chuck Moe | 11:06 am, June 20, 2010

Interested in Hayek’s Road To Serfdom? Could you use some expert guidance through the book by an acclaimed economics professor? Sign up for an online Mises Academy course starting July 5 through August 6. This course is an in-depth exploration of the classic book The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, which has recently shot to #1 on Amazon after…

What Do American Muslims Think?

by Ari Armstrong | 11:03 am, June 20, 2010

As I recently pointed out, many conservatives want to block the building of a mosque near the World Trade Center, largely on the grounds that the mosque would be a beachhead for the eventual establishment of sharia law within the U.S. This is a widespr…

Ken Buck 53%, Jane Norton 37%; Michael Bennet 53%, Andrew Romanoff 36%

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:12 am, June 20, 2010

A new Denver Post poll shows that Ken Buck leads Jane Norton in their race for the GOP’s U.S. Senate nomination, 53% to 37%. Michael Bennet leads Andrew Romanoff in their race for the Democrats’ nomination, 53% to 36%. The primary elections are Aug. 10, and voters will start mailing in their ballots by about July 20.
Buck leads Bennet 46% to 43%. This shows the anti-Obama Democrat sentiment has held steady all year, but the race is still close. Bennet has raised millions for his campaign while Buck has raised only several hundred thousand dollars. Buck’s weak fundraising has been offset by more than a million dollars of advertising funded by political action committees (PACs) and 527 groups financed by unnamed contributors.
With Buck and Bennet in a virtual tie, the race will depend on whether voters remain unhappy with Obama Democrats and whether Buck can match Bennet’s strong fundraising. Political consultants say that if candidates don’t have the money they need for a general election by July, they will have a tough time beating a candidate with as much money on hand as Bennet has. 
However, this is 2010, and both Buck and Bennet are relatively unknown to voters. All Buck has to do is attract enough funding to be competitive in what looks like a strong GOP year, and he has a chance to beat the appointed Obama Democrat Bennet.
This is the second credible poll that shows Buck leading Norton and the first one that shows Bennet with such a big lead over the underfunded Romanoff.
At what point will Republicans unite behind Buck and Democrats behind Bennet? After the primary or now? Wishful thinkers will wait until after the primaries. Political pros will start shifting their allegiances and support now. Both Buck and Bennet seem to have insurmountable leads. There are no signs that either Norton or Romanoff are attracting the strong, passionate support that they will need to pull off victories in August.
LINKs:
Poll: Buck, Bennet lead in U.S. Senate primary races. By Michael Booth.
Why is Ken Buck leading Jane Norton by 10 points? The Business Word, 6.11.2010.

Happy Fathers Day

by Rossputin | 7:54 am, June 20, 2010

Happy Father’s Day to my dad, all my friends who are dads, and, I suppose, to me.

The whole Mothers Day vs Fathers Day thing has always seemed a little unbalanced to me.  I don’t remember our family doing much or saying much about Fathers Day when I was a kid, particularly in comparison to Mothers Day.

Perhaps it’s not a big suprise because, at least in terms of recognition of the holidays by the federal government, Mothers Day has been around since 1914 while a presidential proclamation of Fathers Day waited until Richard Nixon in 1972.

So, when I was a young kid, Fathers Day didn’t even exist.  When I was an older kid, it perhaps still didn’t seem like a “real” holiday and anyway my dad didn’t seem the type to care a lot about a day dedicated to appreciating him.

I sorta feel the same way, maybe because I grew up without Fathers Day seeming like a big deal and maybe because I feel like the stuff I do for the family is what I’m supposed to do.  It’s like celebrating a soldier for his day-to-day tasks while serving in the Army.  But we tend to celebrate soldiers after their military service, whether they left it living or not, rather than just for doing their jobs.  And in the short years that I’ve been a father, I’ve felt much the same way.

Mothers Day, on the other hand, was always a big deal when I was growing up, at least in comparison to many other holidays, and remains so in my house today.  My wife anticipates it, I prepare for it and try to get my kids to play along – not easy with toddlers but fun to try.

I have always told my wife (since we’ve had kids, thus making me eligible for celebration) that I don’t want to make too much of Fathers Day, that I don’t really think what I’m doing is all that special or worthy of taking an otherwise beautiful Sunday and complicating it with unneeded festivities.

But as I think about it more, as I progress through fatherhood, I’m objecting to Fathers Day less.  Sure, there’s lots of inherent joy and happiness in being a dad.  But there’s also lots of effort, lots and lots of cost, hundreds of hours of driving and diaper changing and other things taking me away from things I’d rather be doing.  So, maybe, if it’s OK to celebrate Mom’s contribution to the family and to raising the kids and to the sacrifices she makes, just maybe it’s OK to celebrate us dads, too.  Maybe it’s OK for us to have a day of being pampered and appreciated just for being us.

So it’s in that spirit that I promise to enjoy this Fathers Day.  We’re going to go down to a friend’s place where a big group of our small circle of friends will get together on this perfect Colorado almost-summer day for food and drink and to let our kids play in the small lake in their neighborhood.  With luck, I won’t have to spend the whole day watching the kids – but knowing me I’ll probably do just that out of habit.

Anyway, I hope those of you who read this who are dads will find a way, like me, to realize that perhaps we are worthy of a little celebration even though we would do what we do, like a soldier, without it.

And now, I have to go mow the lawn.

A Quick Look at Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61

by PerlStalker | 10:48 pm, June 19, 2010

I was at a meeting of the local Republican Party a couple of weeks ago where a city employee handed out sheets urging us to vote against Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 in November. The flier was created using information from the Bell P…

Elbert County Tea Party

by Al Maurer | 8:54 pm, June 19, 2010

I was at the Elbert County Tea Party this Saturday, getting signatures for the Freedom From Healthcare petition. It was a great opportunity and we collected around 250 signatures. Colorado Attorney General Suthers spoke first, explaining how bad Obamacare is: not only for health care in general, but also for the unprecedented intrusion and control [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado continues the Grassroots Revival – speaking on the Colorado Supreme Court, retention elections, and Chief Justice Mullarkey’s retirement at the “Remember in November” rally Saturday evening

by CTBC Director | 4:11 pm, June 19, 2010

The resurgence of “We The People” in the form of local citizens banding together in grassroots civic action organizations to defend our constitutional rights is THE continuing political story of the year 2010 in America and is profoundly affecting Colorado Politics in this year and beyond…
Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold is both proud and humbled [...]

Dan Maes Responds: “I would never attempt to hide taxes and fees…”

by Ben DeGrow | 10:13 am, June 19, 2010

I was taken aback yesterday when I read this Grand Junction Sentinel column that sure made it sound like Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes favored a lack of transparency in public utilities rate disclosure. Both a Rocky Mountain Right diarist and fellow RMA/PPC blogger Don Johnson jumped over the comments to assail Maes’ views. [...]

China signals change in exchange rate policy

by Rossputin | 9:58 am, June 19, 2010

On Saturday morning, the People’s Bank of China, that nation’s central bank, signaled a change in their yuan exchange rate policy,saying they will allow the currency to move off the two year old 6.83 yuan/dollar “peg”, but in a controlled, “managed” way.

The new policy will likely allow the yuan to rise gradually against the US dollar (since almost everybody thinks the yuan’s pegged value is lower than where it would trade in a free market.)

This is on balance good news for America, but not for the reasons that Democrats like Chuck Schumer, who have been attacking China’s “undervalued” currency, suggest.

Schumer and friends believe that a rising yuan will, by making Chinese goods more expensive, cause some products which are made in China now to be manufactured in America. Schumer and friends hope for that outcome because they want to boost the dying American private sector unions.  Schumer is right that it will make Chinese goods more expensive but he’s wrong that the impact will be more American manufacturing to any substantial degree, especially for low-value-added products.  This is for two reasons:  First, the strong union presence in those sorts of industries in America are a large reason those industries have all but disappeared; no rational manufacturer will move production back to that environment, not to mention the rapidly increasing tax rates, which the US offers.  Second, even if the effective price of labor in USD terms in China increases because of the revaluation, any shift in manufacturing will simply move production towards other very-low-cost-of-labor Asian economies such as Thailand, Vietnam, and India.  The US will probably never again be – and hopefully never again will be (a point lost on all Democrats and many Republicans) – competitve in the production of low-value-added products.

So, purely from the point of view of the American consumer, the changing Chinese exchange rate is likely to be a small negative: it will cause the price of many things we use every day, things which are made in China, to increase.

However, that negative is probably dwarfed by the positive impact of avoiding a trade war or even lesser trade skirmishes and squabbles as well as engendering at least modestly increased cooperation on other issues.  Every time some idiot politician talks about getting China branded a “currency manipulator”, they put stress on an important geopolitical and economic relationship.  Not only do the Chinese purchase a lot of our debt, keeping our interest rates low, but we also need their help from time to time in the United Nations and on other international stages, these days particularly in dealing with Iran.  The Chinese are strategic competitors, not allies, but they are certainly not the enemy.  Needlessly antagonizing them, especially when those barbs come from people whose understanding of economics is limited to finding ways to spend other people’s money while demagoguing about the evil rich, is very bad foreign and economic policy.

Therefore, to the extent that China’s move lessens or removes the ability for Schumer, Geithner and others to verbally assault China, the likelihood of China working against us on major issues is diminished.  For that, the extra few cents that we’ll pay for products at WalMart is probably worth it.

That said, those few cents add up: our average level of imports from China over the last 5 years is about $300 billion annually.  For every 1% that the yuan revalues upwards, that represents a cost of $3 billion each year to American consumers.  If the Yuan were to move 10% over several years, which is certainly possible, we’re talking about at least a $30 billion a year increase in cost to America, (plus the additional sales tax on that $30 billion.) This is nothing to sneeze at and represents a very real negative for our cost of living.

I support China’s move because I believe in free markets and because it reduces some political tension between the countries.  However, while the move by China might represent a small political victory for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, don’t believe the hype when the Obama Administration spins the new Chinese policy as an unvarnished positive for America.

Balanced Budget, Obama Care, Space Programs, 2010 Election: Interview with Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman

by Ben DeGrow | 9:38 am, June 19, 2010

I was privileged Thursday with the opportunity to conduct a one-on-one phone interview with Congressman Mike Coffman, Republican from Colorado’s 6th CD. As co-founder of the Balanced Budget Caucus on Capitol Hill, it’s not surprising that Coffman is heavily focused on the importance of this issue. “You have to take the power away from Congress,” [...]

Republicans should run against the unions that own Obama, slow Gulf oil spill clean up

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:31 am, June 19, 2010

Seafaring and other unions have such a tight grip on the Democratic Party and Obama Democrats that they have disastrously slowed work to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and on the American coast. This gives Republicans another reason to run against the unions that are ruining the Gulf and driving highly-unionized state and federal governments into bankruptcy.
Under pressure from unions, President Obama has refused to waive the Jones Act, or Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which keeps European ships built to clean up oil spills from working in American waters. A few days after Katrina, President Bush waived the Jones Act so foreign ships could help with rescue and recover efforts. But Obama is so beholden to a few powerful union leaders that he is putting their demands ahead of the welfare of millions of Americans and the beaches and marshes in Louisiana, Alabama, Florida and Mississippi. Typical.
In an editorial today, The Wall Street Journal criticizes the President’s priorities. It’s impact graphs:
Blame it on the protectionist Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also called the Jones Act, that requires ships working in U.S. waters to be built, operated and owned by Americans. Building specialized clean-up vessels in the U.S. is too expensive because of high union labor costs, and unions don’t want ships built with foreign labor to be used in U.S. waters. To circumvent the Jones Act, clean-up crews have had to outfit American ships with skimming technology airlifted from the Netherlands. This has resulted in serious delays and greater harm to the Gulf.
Presidents can suspend the Jones Act in emergencies, as George W. Bush did after Hurricane Katrina. But the Obama Administration continues to maintain that this isn’t necessary and that there are “no pending requests” for waivers. But Florida Republican Senator George LeMieux disagrees and says his constituents want all the foreign help possible.
LINKs:
The President does a Jones Act; why Obama turned down foreign ships to clean up the Gulf. WSJ editorial.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses the Colorado Supreme Court, retention elections, and Chief Justice Mullarkey’s retirement at South Weld County Republican Breakfast Saturday

by CTBC Director | 5:56 am, June 19, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses the impact of Colorado Supreme Court rulings leading to a massive expansion of government power (at the expense of YOUR constitutional rights) and vastly increased taxation (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases and of course the Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle [...]

Q&A with Jennifer Coken on Challenging Denial of Her Petition for HD 4 Democratic Primary

by Mike Krause | 7:32 pm, June 18, 2010

Jennifer Coken wants to be my state representative. She gathered 1,400 signatures to petition her way on to the Democratic primary ballot for House District 4 (which includes northwest Denver). She needed 849 signatures. The Secretary of State invalidated enough signatures to disqualify her from the ballot. This brings up a quirky point of election [...]

Citizens make a difference in Lewis-Palmer School District

by Amy Oliver | 5:46 pm, June 18, 2010

If you don’t think local activists asking a few a questions can make a difference, then visit a new watch-dog Web site that is keeping an eye on the Lewis-Palmer School District in Monument. Lewis-Palmer Direction 38 explains its mission:
This site aims to provide another source of information for the public to access.  As citizens of [...]

Cory Gardner makes sure voters know he is not a racist

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 5:08 pm, June 18, 2010

Cory Gardner has Colorado’s fourth Congressional District virtually locked up because Betsy Marky (D-CD-4) is such a strong Obama Democrat that she can’t overcome the anti-Obama Democrat tide in the conservative district.
One thing about Gardner is clear, he is no racist. Another thing that is clear is that he’s a smart politician. And the third thing that is clear is that he knows guilt by association could kill him politically.
So when U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) made some comments about President Obama that sounded pretty racist at first glance, Gardner immediately canceled a fundraiser that was scheduled to feature King. Smart.
King’s supporters and former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CD 6) are flaming Gardner for making his beliefs clear and for doing the right thing.
Who wins in this dispute? Clearly, Gardner. His quick action will appeal to the independents in his district, and most conservative Republicans will vote for him regardless. He has plenty of time to tout and defend his actions while Tancredo, King and Peter Boyles won’t be around to defend their basically indefensible position.

What does strength of Tea Party mean for Ken Buck, Jane Norton, Dan Maes, Scott McInnis?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 4:31 pm, June 18, 2010

A Rasmussen Reports video that reports that a third of Coloradans identify with the Tea Party is getting attention on Colorado’s blogs, and that brings up the question, how will the TP strength affect the primary campaigns of Jane Norton, Ken Buck, Dan Maes and Scott McInnis?
Start with some assumptions based on Tea Party behavior to date.

The Tea Party is not monolithic in the beliefs of its non-dues-paying “members.”
Tea Party people think for themselves, and they have to, because there really is no party, just a powerful movement.
Ken Buck, Dan Maes, Jane Norton and Scott McInnis are all appealing to the values that they think are most important to Tea Party folks. 
All of the GOP candidates are not only saying things TP folks like, but they’re also all saying things that make TP folks cringe.
TP folks may or may not vote in the primaries. Many didn’t bother to attend the GOP caucuses, and few contribute to the campaigns of their supposed favorites—Ken Buck and Dan Maes.
Some, if not many, TP folks will decide that all of the Republicans have gotten the messages that are important to them. If they come to that conclusion, they may vote for the candidates that are most likely to win and govern as both Republicans and members of the Tea Party.
The poll probably doesn’t mean much because it doesn’t show what Tea Party members want from their politicians.

Rasmussen’s poll found that Colorado has the greatest share of voters who identify with the Tea Party. Just how many Tea Parties are in Colorado?

Better Late Than Never

by Jon Caldara | 4:16 pm, June 18, 2010

The Denver Post has a fantastic article today on how the state Department of Revenue is having problems doling out tax refunds and handling a boatload of complaints.  Funny thing is, our investigate reporter Todd Shepherd published nearly the exact same report 6 weeks ago.  On Tuesday, May 4th, Todd published “Complaints Continue to Bubble [...]

Do liberals still care about what the world thinks of America and Obama?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 4:15 pm, June 18, 2010

During the George W. Bush administration, the left made a big deal of the world’s opinion of America.
Now, Mort Zuckerman, the billionaire publisher of U.S. News & World Report and the NY Daily News, writes: World sees Obama as incompetent and amateur; the president is well-intentioned but can’t walk the walk on the world stage. Read the whole thing!
I’ve never cared much about what the wealth envious world thinks about America, and I still don’t. I bet the liberals don’t think it’s so important these days either.

Would you do business with the secretive Dan Maes?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 4:14 pm, June 18, 2010

Republican gubernatorial candidate told the Grand Junction Sentinel that public utilities should not itemize charges and taxes because that just worries consumers. Scott McInnis disagreed and said utilities and other businesses must be as transparent as possible with consumers and itemize all charges.
Who is the Tea Party candidate here? The secretive and intentionally deceptive Dan Maes or the career politician Scott Mcinnis.
Would you hire Maes as your governor if you knew that he would try to avoid upsetting you with the dirty little details of government?
Or would you hire Scott McInnis if you knew that he believes in your right to know?
h/t RockyMountainRight.com.
LINK:
Itemized fees annoy customers, Maes contends. By Charles Ashby.

Policing for Profit: Prove Your Innocent!

by Jon Caldara | 3:08 pm, June 18, 2010

Our friends at the libertarian litigation firm the Institute for Justice (IJ) are trying to fight the insane world of civil asset forfeiture laws. Where the police can take your property without arrest, without prosecution, and without much of a reason. Where you must prove that you are innocent while fighting the presumption [...]

National Rifle Assn. gives up First Amendment rights for Second Amendment rights

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 2:17 pm, June 18, 2010

The National Rifle Assn. is so desperate to protect our Second Amendment Rights to own guns that it is willing to give up our First Amendment rights. By so doing, the NRA has given up its right to call itself conservative and has joined the liberal fascists who want to take away our First Amendment rights and shut us up. Politico reports:
The idea was to neutralize opposition to tough new campaign spending rules from one particularly powerful special interest group, the National Rifle Association, by exempting it as well as the left-leaning Sierra Club and the ecumenical Humane Society and AARP from certain disclosure requirements in the bill. But while the maneuver was effective in getting the NRA to back down, the deal sparked a backlash that pitted big-money special interest groups, including some traditional allies, against each other, and turned fence-sitters and even some supporters of the bill into opponents.
Short of the votes needed for passage in the House, the bill was pulled Thursday night by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
 
LINKs:
How Dems’ NRA loophole backfired. Politico.

Rasmussen: Colorado Top Tea Party State, 33% of Likely Voters Claim Tea Party Affiliation

by elpresidente | 2:01 pm, June 18, 2010

Autoplay video report after the jump:

« 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