Backbone Radio, January 23, 2011 – In depth with Andrew Romanoff

by Rossputin | 8:34 am, January 23, 2011

Audio archives for this show:

Segment 1 – Talking politics with Andrew Romanoff
Segment 2 – More with Andrew Romanoff
Segment 3 – Discussing international development work and IDE with Andrew Romanoff
Segment 4 – More on IDE
Segment 5 – State Senator Ted Harvey on increasing competition in Denver’s taxi cab industry; also discussing upcoming legislative session
Segment 6 – Thoughts about technological progress and the upcoming State of the Union Address

Please join me for what promises to be a fascinating show with in-studio guest, former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives and unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate, Andrew Romanoff.

In addition to news of the week, we’ll talk about Colorado politics and his 2010 challenge of Michael Bennet for the Democratic Party’s nomination for the Senate.  We’ll discuss political philosophy and explore the mind of a “Progressive” much more “up close and personal” than non-liberals such as most Backbone Radio listeners (and all Backbone Radio hosts) usually have the opportunity to do.  And we’ll speak with Andrew about his current endeavor, working with IDE, an international non-profit organization working to help some of the world’s poorest people by trying to “create income opportunities for poor rural households.”

Andrew should be with the show for at least the entirety of the first two hours, letting us go more in depth on issues than one will hear on most other radio shows.  Please don’t be shy about calling in to ask Andrew questions – and please be polite if you do, even if you disagree with his political philosophy as much as I do.

Also, in the 7-o’clock hour we’ll be joined by State Senator Ted Harvey to talk about the upcoming senate session, including legislation he has introduced to “increase competition in Denver metro taxi cab companies through deregulation.”  It’s an issue I’ve actually thought about before due to my support of the Institute for Justice, which took on a similar situation and won in court.

Please join me by listening to (and calling in to) this week’s Backbone Radio program from 5 PM to 8 PM on 710 AM KNUS in Denver and 1460 AM KZNT in Colorado Springs.

If you’re not in range of the radio waves, you should be able to listen to the show online by clicking HERE.

I hope you’ll actively participate in the conversation with me: Call the studio at 303 696 1971, e-mail me at ross(at)backboneradio.net, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com or through AOL Instant messenger to screen name Rossputin.

Not the Best Choice of Words…..

by Elliot | 9:13 pm, January 22, 2011

You know, comparing a group of people (whose family members are one of the fastest growing voting blocs) to multiplying rats isn’t really the best example of political judgment…..

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold interviewed on Rob McNealy Show

by CTBC Director | 4:11 pm, January 22, 2011

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discussed the Colorado judicial accountability effort in 2010 (and beyond) on the Rob McNealy show, Thursday 13 January 2011.
(Listen to the podcast here – the segment starts at the 47:00 minute mark)
The fight to reform Colorado’s corrupt legal/judicial complex continues.  Clear The Bench Colorado is working to hold the [...]

Whatever Happened to War Protest Rallies?

by T.L. James | 3:00 pm, January 22, 2011

Michael and I have been discussing lately the sudden evaporation of an active anti-war rally movement in Colorado following the 2008 elections. The last major event that I remember seeing from that quarter was the Ayers-Churchill event at CU [live-streamed PPC video at the link] back in March 2009…and that was really a praise Churchill/hate [...]

Organ Donor Bill Dies

by PerlStalker | 10:46 am, January 22, 2011

Senator Lucia Guzman has pulled her bill which would have opted everyone in as an organ donor. I posted my take on the bill on Thursday.

The Donor Alliance was concerned that the dialogue surrounding Senate Bill 42 would create a backlash. For examp…

Rep. Steve Cohen makes all Jews look bad

by Rossputin | 8:01 am, January 22, 2011

Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) is a reprehensible politician…and a reprehensible Jew – says this Jew.  His comparison of Republicans to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, and his insistence that he was correct to make that comparison is nothing short of disgusting.  Watch for yourself.

Yes, Cohen has said he didn’t intend to offend anyone.  That’s utter bullshit.  The interview with Anderson Cooper shows that Cohen has a history of this kind of talk, and Cohen was absolutely clear with Cooper that he believes what he said.  I, for one, do not accept Cohen’s so-called apology.  Perhaps the best comment on the matter came from, of all places, Mara Liasson of NPR, who said that because Cohen had invoked the use of Nazis to make a political point, Cohen had immediately lost.

To be sure, Cohen is a fringe character, as demonstrated in small part by his desire – as an old white guy – to join the Congressional Black Caucus.  He was correctly and unsurprisingly rebuffed.

What really troubles me about this is that Cohen probably says such things in the belief that subtle anti-Semitism actually helps him in his majority black district. It has not gone unnoticed by me that some of the most anti-Semitic and/or pro-Palestinian rhetoric we hear in Congress comes from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and papers and articles have been written on the phenomenon of anti-Semitism among American blacks more widely. (See HERE and HERE and HERE for examples.) It seems somewhat strange, given the deep involvement of Jews in the 1960’s civil rights movement.  Perhaps I can get a guest on my radio show one day who can really explain it…

In the last election cycle, Cohen faced a primary challenge from the black former mayor of Memphis who, particularly incensed that Cohen got Barack Obama’s endorsement, said that Cohen was “trying to act black, trying to bring back the plantation days.”

Perhaps someone needs to tell Steve Cohen that, unlike Robert Downey, Jr., he’s not just playing a black guy on the big screen…

Keith Olbermann abruptly exits MSNBC, leaving one college student’s dream unfulfilled

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 11:45 pm, January 21, 2011

I must say, I am sad and deeply disappointed tonight.  Regrettably, my long-time dream of being honored with the coveted title of Keith Olbermann’s Worst Person in the World has been crushed.  Say it ain’t so! In a shocking twist for the perennially-failing, perpetually dis-enlightening MSNBC, the network has lost its most popular host, Mr. [...]

Spouse of Denver U.S. Citizen to Be Deported

by Elliot | 7:30 pm, January 21, 2011

Spouse of U.S. citizen (residing in Denver) to be deported. Somehow somebody thinks this serves the national interest. Oh yeah, they have a kid. And no, the citizen is not latina – she appears to be of western european stock (not that that should matter).   And no, this is not an uncommon application of [...]

Lambert Introduces Arizona-Style Immigration Bill

by T.L. James | 5:14 pm, January 21, 2011

Sen. Kent Lambert (R-Co. Springs) introduced this week the first of what promises to be several bills replicating in Colorado elements of Arizona SB-1070.  This first bill (SB 11-054) replicates what may be the most controversial part of the Arizona law, the “reasonable suspicion” section under which police are required to make a reasonable attempt [...]

Jan. 31st LOTR Event — Eric Golub and “2081″

by redrocks | 4:32 pm, January 21, 2011

“And Now For Something Completely Different”

What: Happy Hour with Political Comic Eric Golub + Short Film “2081”
When: Monday, January 31, 2011, 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm
Where: JACKSON’S ALL AMERICAN GRILL (LoDo)
1520 20th St. (Wazee & 20th St.)

The three Denver Metro Liberty on the Rocks’ chapters (Red Rocks, Denver, and Tech Center) have teamed [...]

An incredibly dumb statement on the floor of the House of Representatives.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 3:55 pm, January 21, 2011

George Miller, Democratic Representative from California, had this to say on the House floor in defense of Obamacare and against the House vote to repeal it:Has anybody, any family in America, any single mother, any spouse, any child, any grandparent, …

Citizens’ Budget on KNUS and 850 KOA

by Jon Caldara | 2:27 pm, January 21, 2011

Citizens’ Budget project director Penn Pfiffner continues his mission of spreading the good word about the solutions found in our Citizen’s Budget project. This past week found Penn on two different radio shows. The first was on Ross Kaminsky’s Backbone Radio program on KNUS. Filling in for Ross that day was Krista Kafer, who did [...]

Falling Enrollment Pushes Small Colo. School District to $46,000 Per Pupil

by Eddie | 1:43 pm, January 21, 2011

I’ve heard my mom say on more than one occasion that people come in all shapes and sizes. The same is true for school districts, too. Rebecca Jones at Education News Colorado provides some interesting insights with a story focused on Colorado’s smallest, and steadily shrinking, school district: Agate. When you see the numbers and [...]

Mike R: I Will Speak, I Will Vote, therefore, I’m Dangerous

by Rossputin | 6:40 am, January 21, 2011

Thanks to Mike R. for the following contribution to these pages.  The left likes to characterize conservatives or Tea Party activists as angry, and part of me doesn’t want to give them any fodder. But sometimes there really is something to be angry about; I think Mike has a valid point and represents a substantial plurality of our nation even if he’s feeling somewhat more emotional about government than I usually do.

 

“I’m like a walking razor
Don’t you watch my size
I’m dangerous
Said I’m dangerous

Said I’m dangerous,
So Dangerous”

Peter Tosh

—-

I’m Dangerous!

There I’ve said it, I’ve had enough of politicians and pundits and their squishy talk. Nothing is provoking me more to action than the new era of euphemism,  self censorship and self correction over the use of metaphors, analogies and similes that are part of the lexicon and parlance of our speech and all its inglorious history (It’s about the grammar if you will…).

When I want my congressman to fire a shot across the bow of his opponent, dammit that’s what I want not some limp-wristed, panty-waisted call for consensus, compromise or conciliatory gentleman’s disagreement. I want trench warfare, I want hand to hand combat. I want damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead action to kill the bill and I don’t want him taking any prisoners along the way.

I’m about at the end of my rope over this.

I did vote for my congressman and senator to take the fight to the enemy, my fight, the good fight, the fight for all that is good and holy, yes I hired a crusader, a soldier, a mercenary if I had wanted a mediator for shuttle diplomacy with my enemy that’s what I would have hired, I would have put it in the job description.

Instead I said “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” and I believe that you are just the person to target my foes and their actions with all of your skills and prowess and either bend them to my/our will or leave them on the ash heap of history.

If you don’t do it I will target you and take matters into my own hands and I hope this is understood clearly to mean at the ballot box as it has always been understood to mean among the sane majority in this country governed by the people.

I do not want to hear the useful idiots voices anymore, telling me that my actions to defend myself and my country or enjoy my lifestyle and freedoms is just a recruiting tool for terrorists. I do not want to keep my powder dry, curb my tongue, watch what I say, guard my actions or catch flies with honey. I want you, my soldier, my mercenary my crusader to rain holy hell on my enemy, demand satisfaction and silence the opposition and, in the words of Malcolm X by way of Sartre, “by any means necessary!”

Does all this sound angry?

It is and I am.

I’m angry that the almost inexplicable actions of a madman have killed and maimed innocents. I’m angry that the almost inexplicable actions of a madman have been cynically used by politicians and pundits on the left to politicize an act of deranged violence. An act of deranged violence born out of a deranged obsession with a public individual/official because the voices in the madman’s head chewed away at what little rationality held him in check until he acted on his delusions.

I’m angry because the actions of a deranged madman have caused more than the briefest moment of introspection that would suggest that our discourse is even remotely responsible for the triggering of his deranged actions.

I’m angry to watch the hand wringing, rephrasing, ‘sorry for misspeaking’ and ‘gotcha’ accusing in our discourse. And the squirming, yes the squirming, ‘squirming like a toad’ at every metaphorical reference that may be the trigger for some deranged individual somewhere to act out.

I’m angry at the thought of creating a list of forbidden words and phrases because of how someone somewhere may react to them.

(As an irrational aside and absurd hat tip to the left I’m angry with The Beatles (Helter Skelter) Jody Foster and J.D Salinger for their incitement in recent history..)

I’m angry at the latest group of useful idiots arguing endless irrational appeasements and by extension, validation, for the rational of terrorists by assigning blame to ourselves for their acts of violence against innocents.

I’m angry at the Newspeak euphemisms for terrorist, terrorism and the war on terror.

I’m angry at the blandishment and tiptoeing around the sensitivities Islamic peoples, many of whom (allow me an ironic caveat: though not all) are sworn to the violent destruction of all those unwilling to accept the dictates of their archaic theocracy and will to genocide.

I’m angry at being told the core values that have served this nation since its inception are prosaic rather than foundational truths, pillars, channel markers, cornerstones, inviolate and that rather than return to them we need to scrap them and ‘transform’ in difficult times.

I’m angry at watching the constant of American Exceptionalism be turned into a kind of profane ego and ethnocentrism as the capricious rule of men dissolves the rule of law in a De Tocqueville[ian] nightmare of bureaucratic czars and administrators of agency and ministerial edict that exists outside the control of the democratic republic.

I’m angry at an educational system that actively seeks to disarm our future generations of the knowledge to defend themselves against an oppressive State and instead turns them into emotional viscerally reactive creatures able to be prodded and herded by the simplest of stimuli like just so many amoeba in a Petri dish.

I’m angry at the anger at China for giving us the rope to hang ourselves while we blithely demand more.

I’m angry to watch the withering of the greatest nation that ever existed and the willing abdication of independence, hegemony and greatness in exchange for a drab grey existence of mediocrity, dependency, endless malaise and despair in an Orwellian future without hope or dreams.

We, who put men on the moon (yes I do believe we did) can’t, for the foreseeable future, even put our own astronauts in space on a space station we built without buying passage on a rocket cloned from our technology belonging to our adversaries.

I’m angry at being told I am wrong to be angry, that anger never accomplishes anything, that anger fosters hatred, that there is no place for angry rhetoric, that my anger with the course of MY government is dangerous.

I’m angry that what seems to go unnoticed is the very real danger of the course we are on and I don’t feel a moment’s hesitation about saying so.

Government Forcing Independent Doctors Out

by PerlStalker | 8:16 pm, January 20, 2011

Ari Armstrong passed along this little gem. The FTC is using antitrust laws to force independent doctors out of business or into “Accountable Care Organizations” which are heavily regulated by the government.

In particular, the Federal Trade Commiss…

All Your Body Parts Are Belong To Colorado!

by PerlStalker | 8:02 pm, January 20, 2011

Not even your internal organs are yours when you die. At least, that’s the hope of Senator Lucia Guzman who is sponsoring a bill to automatically enroll Coloradans as organ donors.

Colorado’s proposal, introduced last week, would change the process …

Bipartisan Obamacare Repeal Got More Votes Than the Original Bill

by Mr. Bob | 5:54 pm, January 20, 2011

#rush #teaparty #tcotBipartisan Obamacare Repeal Got More Votes Than the Original BillTweet

The State of Investigative Journalism in Colorado

by Jon Caldara | 1:46 pm, January 20, 2011

What’s the state of investigative journalism in Colorado? Tune in to Devil’s Advocate this Friday to find out as I am joined by Denver Post staff writer Chuck Plunkett and Independence Institute investigative reporter Todd Shepherd to discuss the Denver Post’s new political investigative project, the place of new media in investigative reporting, and [...]

Citizens’ Budget Facts

by Jon Caldara | 1:42 pm, January 20, 2011

Citizens’ Budget project director Penn Pfiffner has been sending “facts of the day” to our state legislature every morning. These are little informational nuggets that can be found inside our project, but might get overlooked due to the sheer size of our Citizens’ Budget. I think these factoids are great, so I’m sharing the first [...]

The Mugging of Comcast

by Ari Armstrong | 12:47 pm, January 20, 2011

The Washington Post reports, “Federal regulators on Tuesday blessed Comcast’s $30 billion acquisition of NBC Universal, imposing a slew of conditions on everything from competition with rivals to the price of Internet service for poor families out of c…

“What’s at the absolute top” of Jeb Bush’s Education Reform List? Digital Learning

by Eddie | 11:27 am, January 20, 2011

Today I get to recommend to you a great video from reason.tv, as Nick Gillespie asks former Florida governor (and founder, board president and chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education) Jeb Bush, “What is at the absolute top of your education reform list?”:

For those of you too impatient to watch the video (or [...]

Obama’s regulation head-fake

by Rossputin | 7:08 am, January 20, 2011

For today’s reading, may I offer you my article for the American Spectator about Barack Obama’s Executive Order and accompanying WSJ editorial on the subject of government regulation?

In short, it’s very hard to take President Obama seriously about his wanting to help business growth, especially small business, while his administration pushes full speed ahead with Obamacare and other massive regulatory overreach.

Please see “Obama’s Shell Game”, Ross Kaminsky, American Spectator, 1/19/11
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/19/obamas-shell-game

Medicaid block grant saves Rhode Island $100 million

by Brian Schwartz | 7:00 am, January 20, 2011

Instead of receiving open-ended Federal matching funds for spending its taxpayers’ money Rhode Island received a block grant. The state’s Rhode Island’s Secretary of Health & Human Services explains the benefits.

Hick Gets a shot at Ritter’s Mulligan on State Vehicle Use

by Michael | 6:42 am, January 20, 2011

Newly elected Governor John Hickenlooper has a chance to curtail government employee usage of state-owned vehicles for personal commuting and save the state as much as $3 million in the process – something his predecessor, Bill Ritter, took a pass on last June when he vetoed HB 1287, according to COST:
Can a governor get a [...]

Tom Tancredo’s misplaced devotion

by Rossputin | 6:13 am, January 20, 2011

In an interview with the Colorado Statesman, Tom Tancredo opined about the decision by Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams to seek another term.

Unfortunately, Tancredo – whom I consider a friend and whom I aggressively supported, albeit starting a little late, in his quest for the governorship in November – went off into a sexual preference-oriented mini-rant against big-money Democrat donors.

Tancredo started off with a good point about the negative unintended consequences of campaign finance laws supported by so-called reformers: “I hope they’re satisfied, because all they have done is drive it into the hands of Jared Polis, Tim Gill and Pat Stryker.”

He was right about that, although since his election to Congress in 2008, Jared Polis has been substantially absent from local politics and political funding.

Unfortunately, Tom continued in a vein that I think makes him, and by extension his supporters, look small minded, even ignorant:

“We could do the same if we had any dedicated heterosexuals who were so completely devoted to heterosexuality,” he said, claiming that, “the motivation for Gill and Polis was to advance the homosexual agenda. We don’t have anything like that — we conservatives — so we are at a distinct disadvantage.”

It’s certainly true that Tim Gill’s motivation revolves substantially around “gay rights”.  And while I do not support government-sanctioned gay marriage (because I do not support any government involvement in marriage for any two people), it’s not a ridiculous argument for gay marriage supporters to claim that they are being treated unequally under the law.  Again, I don’t buy the argument because I don’t believe there is a fundamental right to a marriage sanctioned by government.

But someone need not be “devoted to homosexuality” to take up that fight.  After all, many or most abolitionists or even white civil rights crusaders a century later were not “devoted to” blacks.  They were heroically devoted to certain principles of equality, whether under God or under the law.

As for Jared Polis, he is my Congressman and a friend.  While he obviously supports gay marriage, it’s clear to me that Polis’ primary areas of interest are education and immigration, both of which are areas in which Tom has substantial interest, opinions, and expertise and thus areas in which perhaps Tancredo and Polis could have an interesting conversation.

(Tom and Jared: Want to be on my radio show discussing these things???)

While interviewing Polis on my radio show on the issue of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, he said “You’ve known me a long time, Ross.  I never wear a sign around my neck saying what my orientation is.”  That’s exactly right.  In my discussions with Polis over the last several years, issues surrounding gays were only the topic of conversation when I brought them up; Jared always wants to talk about education or immigration or health care or tax policy.

In the interest of maintaining my position as the President of the Society to Perpetuate Harmful Stereotypes, I would also note that Jared’s fashion sense offers no clue as to his sexual orientation.  OK, although that was intended to be funny, there’s a germ of seriousness there: as far as Jared Polis’ public life goes, at least during the few years I’ve known him, there is not only precious little to suggest he is substantially motivated by sexual orientation politics, there isn’t even much to give one a hint that he’s gay if you didn’t already know. Hardly the characteristics of someone “devoted to homosexuality.”

Jared Polis is a committed and, as I tell him directly, occasionally economically confused, liberal.  He has infrequent but much appreciated flashes of support for entrepreneurs and understanding of the damage that tax hikes can do, strangely intertwined with support for single-payer health care.  He supports competition in education while falling prey to the siren song of universal preschool, even though data on such programs show no lasting benefit but high cost.  He has repeatedly proposed legislation using tax cut incentives to spur investment, but supported the fatally-flawed Dodd-Frank “reform bill”. In short, Jared is, on political issues, slightly better than the average Democrat. And none of this has anything to do with his sexual orientation any more than my views on those issues have anything to do with my heterosexuality.

Speaking of my heterosexuality, I am who and what I am.  I don’t think that much about it and I’m certainly not “devoted to” my sexual preference (which is not to say that I’m open to changing it!) as devotion implies frequent thought and attention to the principle involved and upholding it as a model of near-perfection or at least of something worthy of adoration. Sexual preference simply can’t rationally be any of those things.  I would bet money that Jared Polis agrees with me, even if Tim Gill might not.

I’ve frequently said in the past that I think the “Christian right” makes an error in trying to use government to impose its vision of morality on the world.  First of all, it’s an improper function of government.  Second, once the door is opened to allowing government enforcement of morality, then when liberals take over government they can push their morality on us, which I don’t want any more than I want Focus on the Family’s view imposed by government.

“Conservatives” argue that the left already imposes morality, so they’re just pushing back.  There is some truth to that, but the push-back should be to eliminate the use of government power and money to support one side or the other’s view on abortion, drugs, or marriage, just to name a few of the most prominent “social issues.”  Furthermore, the push-back should be in the form of supporting federalism, not a conservative version of a federal Nanny State.

I cannot support conservatives who are motivated by a “devotion to heterosexuality”.  If you’re pro-life, don’t have an abortion.  If you’re pro-heterosexuality, don’t sleep with men.  If you’re anti-drug, don’t smoke pot.  None of this should require “devotion” and certainly none if it should involve the federal government.

Separately from the rhetorical and philosophical implications of Tancredo’s use of the word “devotion” and characterizations of certain Democrats, I think he makes a substantial political error by going down that path.

The American public is, particularly during such difficult economic times, uninterested – to put it kindly – in Republicans with extreme views on social issues.  For my money, anyone claiming a “devotion” to a particular sexual preference can be – and certainly would be – characterized as extreme.  Tom, could you have already forgotten Ken Buck, a man who should have handily beaten appointed Senator Michael “Who?” Bennet but who was sunk by  extreme statements about abortion (no exception for rape or incest) and homosexuality (it’s a choice)?

Statements like Buck’s – and like Tancredo’s – must make voters, at least the critical-to-get unaffiliated voters, question the motivation and focus on Republican/conservative candidates.  As a friend of mine wondered after reading Tancredo’s interview, it makes one wonder whether “(Tancredo’s) public service is more about his devotion to heterosexuality than stopping illegal immigration or improving education and school choice. I don’t yet believe that is the case, but I am beginning to consider the possibility.”  Creating this sort of debate in the minds of voters is a huge political mistake for an ambitious politician like Tom Tancredo.

It’s unfortunate that Tancredo made statements about “devotion to heterosexuality” as a political motivator in the same story in which he recounted switching his political registration back to the Republican Party.  It’s exactly the kind of press and reputation reinforcement which the GOP doesn’t need if it hopes to thrive in a purple state like Colorado.

In the meantime, one can’t help but wonder, regarding the decision by Dick Wadhams to seek re-election as state GOP Chairman, whether Tom’s “devotion to heterosexuality” explains why he decided he “would not support Dick.”  (Sorry, in my devotion to not letting an easy joke opportunity pass by, I just couldn’t help myself.)

Brother, Can You Spare Some Eye-Bleech?

by T.L. James | 8:09 pm, January 19, 2011

The current Westword cover is eye-catching…in the “what is seen cannot be unseen” sense. Yikes.

Colorado Voucher Bogeyman Story Makes Me Laugh… and Ask Serious Questions

by Eddie | 12:30 pm, January 19, 2011

Hey, there, don’t look now, but I think there’s something behind you… like the bogeyman!! Not really, it’s just the impression I got from reading yesterday’s Colorado Independent story titled “Colorado private school vouchers are back, disguised as tax credits.” (H/T Complete Colorado) You’ve got to watch out for those pesky vouchers in disguise. You [...]

Rep. Ted Poe gets it almost right on Obamacare

by Rossputin | 8:09 am, January 19, 2011

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) explains in a piece for Human Events “Why Repeal Really Matters“.  It’s a solid piece from a solid member of congress, but I would pick a nit with one aspect of Rep. Poe’s note:

To Rep. Poe:

I appreciate the sentiment expressed when you said “Congress should not be appropriating money for a government program that very well might be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.”

Perhaps the fact that you’re a former judge has caused you to miss what I’d think an obvious point, one coincidentally made in a Washington Times article today, that it is not only the role of the judiciary to protect and defend the Constitution.

As a member of Congress, you and your colleagues share that responsibility.  Therefore, it might be more appropriate for you to argue against funding Obamacare because YOU believe it’s unconstitutional rather than because you think another branch of government will.

As a practical matter, it makes more sense, too.  After all, President Bush explicitly abandoned his oath when signing McCain-Feingold, saying he knew it to be unconstitutional but passing the buck to the Supreme Court which then, by a 5-4 vote, upheld most of that frontal assault on the First Amendment.

When it comes to requiring constitutionality to get your support for a bill’s passage or the funding of a government program, don’t be shy…and don’t rely on judges!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/18/house-gop-spoils-for-constitution-fight/

———–

I’d like to reiterate here that I know Rep. Poe to be very solid and to be one of the few members of Congress who actually thinks about the Constitution.  My intent with this note is to encourage him to be even more aggressive in his discussion of constitutionality and to reinforce the idea that the opinion of a congressman that something is unconstitutional should have at least as much impact on his vote as his guess on how the Supreme Court would rule should have on his vote.

Shepard Smith’s strange conclusion about regulation

by Rossputin | 7:20 am, January 19, 2011

Shepard Smith
Fox News, Studio B

Dear Shepard,

While discussing government regulation with Gerri Willis (on Tuesday at approx: 2:30 PM in Oxford) and noting that there are more government regulations than words in the English language, you implied a proper skepticism about the value of such onerous regulation.

You then said that the derivatives market is essentially unregulated and that it is “bigger than our entire economy…times three.”

Instead of reaching what I would have thought to be the obvious conclusion, namely that regulation stifles growth, you lamented that “we have no control whatsoever” over derivatives trading.

If you look at the recent financial meltdown, there is precious little evidence that the unregulated sector of the financial markets played a starring role.  Instead, what crushed banks, markets, and the economy was perhaps the single most regulated part of America’s financial tapestry: banking and mortgage banking. Papers and books can be and have been written on this.  More broadly, government entanglement in private business (which is what most regulation in the financial sector is), destroyed any ability for a “free market” to function (not that we’ve had anything particularly close to a free market in banking even before the 2008-2009 bailouts, TARP, etc) and destroyed the public’s belief that there is a functioning market.  (See this interesting paper by Bruce Yandle on the topic of “Lost Trust.”)

Beyond the fact that a large part of the derivatives market is in fact highly regulated (such as everything that trades on every options or futures exchange), your observation that the unregulated portion of derivatives trading dwarfs most other markets is a clarion call for reducing regulation elsewhere, not increasing regulation in a sector which has served the nation and world admirably, even if not flawlessly, for many years.

I respectfully ask you to reconsider the lesson to be learned from the success of largely unencumbered markets such as derivatives or the Internet, versus the outcomes from the highly regulated sectors of our economy, such as mortgages and health insurance. Which sectors do you think have happier employees, happier customers, and more opportunity to provide jobs and profits for American workers and investors?

Just When You Think People Couldn’t Care Less About Climate Change, They Do

by PerlStalker | 12:12 am, January 19, 2011

Well, isn’t this lovely.

As polls indicate that public interest in climate change and related environmental issues is waning, local environmental and consumer groups say they will stay on message to keep the issues on the public’s mind.

A poll b…

« 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