Have Colo. Springs Union Leaders Given Up Safeguarding “the Future of Children”?

by Eddie | 11:29 am, April 14, 2011

Remember about six weeks ago when I told you that the Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA) was blackballing the District 11 Board of Education’s decision to open collective bargaining negotiations to public observation? CSEA president Kevin Marshall told the Colorado Springs Gazette that the decision was made to “protect the integrity of the collective bargaining [...]

Playing the Trump card

by Rossputin | 8:45 am, April 14, 2011

(H/T to Craig Silverman for the pun…)

Donald Trump, although a larger-than-life figure, is not a “right wing nut” or Tea Partier and thus, in addition to the fact that he just doesn’t give a damn (or at least wants us to think that, ala Iranian President Ahmadinejad), is bringing the issue of President Obama’s birth, or more precisely his birth certificate, into the mainstream of America.

The issue could be a serious thorn in Obama’s side, not so much because people think he was born overseas (though that’s not something we can logically rule out at this point), but because Trump’s more basic question is easy to understand: “Why not just show us the birth certificate?”

The same inquiry can and should apply to his academic records, including who paid for his attendance at two colleges and law school.

The lack of answers and Obama’s intense efforts to prevent such answers from coming to light will make independents wonder “who is Obama, really?” even more than they’re wondering it now.

So while the “birthers” were denigrated (not least by the use of that term) by the left and the dominant mass media (but I repeat myself), Obama will find it harder to dodge the question this time. And given how much effort and money he’s spent to hide his documents so far, you’d have to bet that he won’t cave in, leaving this issue to dog him all the way to the election and hurt him at that time. The question becomes obvious: What does Barack Obama have to hide?

Trump’s semi-mainstreaming of the issue of “why won’t he just show us and make this all go away?” will also make it easier for other candidates to ask similar questions. Although the question of Obama’s birth is not an irrational one, it’s politically somewhat risky. However, Republicans can and should imply the question without asking it, such as “President Obama, among the questions people have about your well-hidden past, I’m sure America would love to see your college records, as we’ve seen from every other president in recent years.” Or something even more subtle than that. A candidate need not mention the birth certificate in order to remind voters of the elephant in the room, or more precisely the elephant missing from the room.

Trump made other news Monday when he was said in an interview that he would “probably” run as an independent candidate if he does not get the Republican nomination. It may be a gambit to try to increase voters’ likelihood of supporting him in a GOP primary, or he may really mean it. With Trump, one never knows. (I continue to believe he will not run at all.)

While I’m quite pleased, in a tactical political sense, with Trump’s actions bringing up the birth certificate question – again, more because it shows Obama’s evasiveness than because of any certainty on my part about where Obama was born – Trump should not be the Republican nominee. And even more importantly, he must be dissuaded out of running as an independent, an act which could decimate the chance of beating Barack Obama.

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator (which leaves out the prior thoughts about Trump and the birth certificate):
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/14/trump-the-protectionist

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Blogger Who Posted to HuffPo for Free is Upset That He’s Not Getting Paid

by PerlStalker | 11:26 pm, April 13, 2011

There’s an old saying that comes up in regards to premarital sex. It goes something like this: “Why buy the cow when you can the milk for free.” It’s intended as a warning to promiscuous girls that their guys will never marry them if they put out befor…

Wake up, Amy!

by Al Maurer | 11:18 pm, April 13, 2011

Colorado citizens aren’t smart enough to know what’s good for them.

4/7 Pt 1 – Exclusive with Dr. Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation, plus Gregory Carlson

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 5:00 pm, April 13, 2011

In Part One of the 4/7 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger is joined in a College Radio Exclusive by Dr. Ed Feulner, President and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, for a wide-ranging discussion on some of the most pressing issues of t…

4/7 Pt 2 – Gregory Carlson on conservative takeover of the CU government, Colorado College Republicans (Pt 2)

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 3:00 pm, April 13, 2011

In Part Two of the 4/7 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger continues his in-studio chat with Gregory Carlson, Student Body Treasurer at CU-Boulder and chairman-designate of the Colorado Federation of College Republicans. Following thi…

Paul Ryan (still) has Obama’s number

by Rossputin | 2:45 pm, April 13, 2011

As part of a series of Republican responses to Obama’s budget speech, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) showed Obama for what he is: our “campaigner in chief”. (A few thoughts of mine on Ryan’s comments after the text of his comments…)

Transcript of Ryan’s remarks:

I’m very disappointed in the president. I was excited when we got invited to attend his speech today. I thought the president’s invitation to Mr. Camp, Mr. Hensarling and myself was an olive branch. Instead, what we got was a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to addressing our countries pressing fiscal challenges.

What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief. What we heard today was a political broadside from our campaigner-in chief.

I guess it’s no coincidence that last week when the president launched his billion dollar re-election campaign was the week we launched our effort to try and get this debt and deficit under control and get our economy growing.

Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the president created a fiscal commission. Then with his budget he disavowed his fiscal commission. He ignored all of its recommendations. Now he wants to delegate leadership yet again to a new commission. How are we to expect different results? And the measurements of results of this new commission are lower than the measurements of success of the last commission that ended a few months ago.

We need leadership. We don’t need a doubling down on the failed politics of the past.

This is very sad and very unfortunate. Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells. By failing seriously to confront the most predictable economic crisis in our history, the president’s policies are committing us and our children to a diminished future.

We’re looking for bipartisan solutions not partisan rhetoric. When the president is ready to get serious about it, we’re going to be here working.

Exploiting people’s emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope; it’s not change. It’s partisanship. We don’t need partisanship. We don’t need demagoguery. We need solutions. And we don’t need to keep punting to other people to make tough decisions. If we don’t make those decisions today, our children will have to make much, much tougher decisions tomorrow.

So I am sincerely disappointed that the president had a moment when we were putting ideas on the table, trying to engage in a thoughtful dialog to fix this country’s economic and fiscal problems, decides to pour on the campaign rhetoric, launch his re-election, and pass partisan broadsides against us, making it that much harder for the two parties to come together with mutual respect of one another to get things done.

I enjoyed the “failed politics of the past” remark, a phrase straight out of the Obama playbook, thus reminding the nation of how far we are from “hope and change” (which Ryan then mentioned explicitly.)

(See Obama’s use of that phrase or substantially similar phrases here (his 2008 speech to the Democratic National Convention!), here (attacking John McCain), here (attacking Hillary Clinton), and here (attacking George W. Bush after the latter’s 2008 State of the Union speech.)

“Poisoning wells” was an effective metaphor, casting Barack Obama as both politically and economically toxic.

And Ryan’s repeated emphasis on Obama’s partisanship – and the poor manners of inviting senior Republican congressmen to a speech in which Obama all but called them baby-and-granny-killers – is the first step on a long road toward restoring in voters’ minds the view of the GOP as a party of ideas versus the Democrats as a party of tired, old, mindless redistribution.

Ryan’s response to Obama shows why in a decade or so, when Paul’s children are older, he would be a tremendous candidate for President of the United States.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Xcel’s Got Friends in High Places

by Jon Caldara | 2:25 pm, April 13, 2011

What’s worse than corporate interests cozying up to the legislature to secure protection and taxpayer handouts? A state-sanctioned monopoly doing that. Our environmental policy czarina Amy Oliver Cooke calls out Xcel and our state legislature for being BFFs (that’s Best Friends Forever for those of you without teenagers at home) in this new Environmental Policy [...]

3/31 Pt 1 – Conversation with Troy Ard, CFCR Chair, on gay rights issues and SB 172

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 11:00 am, April 13, 2011

In Part One of the 3/31 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger is joined by Troy Ard, the openly gay chairman of the Colorado Federation of College Republicans, for a discussion on gay rights issues. In particular, the duo narrow in on S…

Colorado and Michigan Taxpayers Both Still Underwriting Teachers Union Release Time

by Eddie | 9:59 am, April 13, 2011

A year ago this time Colorado teachers unions were taking numerous taxpayer-funded leave days to lobby against Senate Bill 191 at the State Capitol. My Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow has written about the topic many times — first with a 2004 issue paper that found nearly $800,000 in taxpayer subsidies underwriting the practice.
The [...]

Obama’s no-win speech

by Rossputin | 9:14 am, April 13, 2011

Cross-posted at the American Spectator: http://spectator.org/blog/2011/04/13/obamas-no-win-budget-speech

At 11:35 AM Mountain Time today, President Obama will give a fiscal policy speech outlining his approach to reducing the federal deficit and debt. The endeavor represents a minefield of political risks for Barack Obama with little offsetting potential benefit.

If Obama comes out for raising taxes on those Americans who already pay the vast majority of federal income taxes (those making over $250,000 represent roughly 2.5% of the population but pay about 50% of all income taxes), he’ll get cheers from the far left – and from nobody else. Not only do most Americans believe that taxing the entrepreneurial and investor class would be damaging to all-important job growth, but it also begs the question of why he semi-proudly agreed to extending the Bush tax cuts for everybody if within just a few months he’s going to propose eliminating them for some. In other words, this proposal will look not just economically foolish but also add to his growing resumé of flip-flops.

If he comes in with a proposal that cuts only about $1 trillion from the debt over a decade, he will look utterly unserious about spending restraint. Keep in mind that the federal budget deficit for the month of February alone was a stunning $223 billion. As Chris Stirewalt notes, a speech which shows Obama to be resolutely unserious about cutting debt and deficits risks the willingness of wavering House Republicans to vote for the budget deal recently negoiated between Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Perhaps most importantly, and it’s a theme I’ll be coming back to repeatedly, is that voters given a choice between the real thing and a lite version will choose the real thing. So, during the Bush Administration, when Republicans were spending like drunk Democrats, voters could choose between the real big-spenders (the Democrats) and the wanna-be big-spenders (the Republicans). They voted for the real thing.

Beginning with New Jersey and Virginia in 2009, continuing through the 2010 House tsunami, voters are focused on spending cuts. And they’re going to want to elect politicians who are real, serious budget cutters, not half-hearted budget-cutters-lite clearly mouthing the words of fiscal responsibility with no conviction in their voices, eyes, or hearts.

Barack Obama will be the poster boy for Democrats’ faux fiscal responsibility. He is far more likely to see his approval ratings, already (in the long-running Gallup presidential approval data) below the approval for any of the three prior presidents at this number of days into a presidency, fall even further.

Barack Obama, despite his condescending, preachy rhetorical tone is – and should be portrayed at every opportunity as – an unserious person. Repeatedly voting “present” while in the Illinois Senate should have been a harbinger for what we got in him as president: Unserious about getting out of Iraq, unserious about closing Guantanamo, unserious abut cutting budgets, unserious about taking non-leftist input into major legislation, unserious about his view on raising the debt ceiling, unserious about leaving in place economically necessary tax rates, and the list goes on.

It’s hard to imagine President Obama, a committed Keynesian Progressive at the least, offering anything but a tepid attempt at budget reform. More likely, his proposal will be laughable to those in serious pursuit of putting this country on a rational and sustainable fiscal footing and Barack Obama will, other than in the fawning newsrooms of the major broadcast networks, find himself that much more cemented in a reputation as a naive, unserious, flip-flopping, big-spending man-child who seems to have more to hide than to offer.

All that said, I’d like nothing more than Obama to offer us a pleasant surprise with a serious budget-cutting proposal, including real entitlement reform. But even if he does so, we must not applaud until his actions, namely his signature on a relevant law, match any such words.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Political Breath Presents, Great Moments in Bad Manners: March 17, 1905

by Eileen McGuire-Mahony | 11:59 pm, April 12, 2011

The first duty of electoral politics is to be fun, and nothing says fun like mind-boggling election fraud. However, the genteel political hack should always take care to at least pretend nothing untoward is going on, much the way a well-bred French housewife will coyly insist Rene is just her tennis coach. Perhaps it was [...]

3/31 Pt 2 – Chat with Phil Perington and Steve Curtis of Tea Party Patriots

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 9:00 pm, April 12, 2011

In Part Two of the 3/31 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger sits down with Phil Perington and Steve Curtis for a discussion on the essence of the Tea Party. From 1997 to 1999, Perington and Curtis were the chairmen of the Colorado Dem…

Jed Babbin: Are we staying in Iraq?

by Rossputin | 7:12 pm, April 12, 2011

For today’s intellectual ammunition, allow me to recommend this insightful and important article by Jed Babbin, explaining how Barack Obama will try to play Iraq to minimize risk to his own re-election:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/11/are-we-staying-in-iraq/

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses Wisconsin Supreme Court elections and implications on Backbone Radio

by CTBC Director | 4:11 pm, April 12, 2011

The hotly contested Wisconsin Supreme Court elections – pitting incumbent and self-described “judicial conservative” David Prosser against union-backed challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg – put Wisconsin back into the political spotlight as “Ground Zero” in the ongoing fight to control an increasingly powerful and unchecked one-third of state governments.
At stake in Wisconsin was (and remains) more than the [...]

I.I. Report Covers Colorado Teacher Pay Innovations, Harrison Program; U.S. Dept. of Education, NCTQ Challenge Nashville Study

by Eddie | 10:27 am, April 12, 2011

Last fall a story about a report on teacher pay reform made the front page of the Denver Post: “Offering teachers bonuses for student growth didn’t raise scores, study finds.” Yes, the front page. Back then I shared a fresh reaction with insights from national experts like Rick Hess concerning what the study actually did [...]

April 18th — Education on Tap!

by redrocks | 8:12 am, April 12, 2011

Education’s “Rocket Man” — Randy DeHoff – Up On The Roof!

April 18, 2011

Tax day cometh, and what better way to put it behind you than to meet with friends at the hottest “educational drink tank” in town! Education will be on tap, as our special guest will be Randy DeHoff (who really is a rocket [...]

Romney launches 2012 presidential committee

by Rossputin | 6:33 am, April 12, 2011

Let me put on my big surprise face: Mitt Romney is running for president.

In a video released yesterday, Romney made the announcement that just barely failed to put me to sleep with its utter lack of surprise in style or content.

To clarify, though my opening comment may have seemed a little snide, Romney is and will be a strong candidate. Yes, he has some serious weakness, particularly RomneyCare. His religion could also be a problem, though I suspect that risk to him is over-rated. More importantly given the nature of Republican primary voters is Romney’s relatively moderate (and changeable) past views on social issues, including abortion. It remains to be seen whether Iowa or New Hampshire GOP primary participants will take him at his word that he’s really pro-life now.

Unfortunately, and it’s a problem for all Republicans, not just Romney, having to play to the right on social issues is a negative when it comes to garnering independent voters in the general election. Romney’s more moderate past, especially if he’s not too fervent during primary season, could thus benefit him in the general election if he were the nominee, if unaffiliated voters believe that if he’s pr0-life at least it’s not likely to be front-and-center of his political agenda if elected.

It’s an age-old debate which we won’t solve today, but Romney’s candidacy certainly highlights both the benefits and perils to Republican candidates of being strong social conservatives.

Much has been made in recent days of the result of a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll which had Mitt Romney leading a large GOP pack with 21% support. Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump were roughly tied at 17%. More from WSJ: “House Speaker Newt Gingrich got 11%, just ahead of former Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s 10%. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, considered a strong contender by political handicappers, remains largely unknown, with just 6% support. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had 5%, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum 3%, and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour with just 1%.”

My take is quite different. I don’t think Trump is a serious candidate, and I hope he isn’t because he’s not just wrong but dangerously wrong when it comes to foreign trade. I don’t think Huckabee or Palin will run, essentially for the same reason: they have it so good right now with wide media exposure and huge incomes that it would only make sense to run if their egos dominated everything else. While anyone who’s been a governor and who has been a serious primary election candidate for president, much less on the ticket for vice-president, certainly has an ego, I think their egos will be satiated enough by being on TV and making multiples of what they’d make as president and being able to have a life that they won’t jump in.

Betting odds on InTrade.com show people who’s money is where their mouths are basically agree with me: Romney is trading aroud 27% to be the nominee. Pawlenty is a distant second at 15%, and then there’s nobody else in double digits.

Mitch Daniels (probably my favored candidate right now, though Romney’s money-raising ability makes him impossible to dismiss as perhaps whom I should favor) is around 8.5%. Michele Bachmann is, somewhat remarkably and probably stupidly in terms of the real odds, trading just over 7%. And that’s more than Trump, Huckabee, Palin, Barbour, and Gingrich, who range (in that order) from 5.5% to 3.5%.

I think those odds are close enough to right except for Bachmann. To be clear, Bachmann is extremely smart, principled, and good-looking, all things which are very helpful to candidates. She’s Sarah Palin with brains and real-world experience (Bachmann has a law degree and a prestigious LL.M., also known as a Masters of Laws degree in tax law. Her husband, Marcus, whom I’ve also met, has a Ph.D.) But I simply think she’s unelectable at this time as she’s too easy to portray as shrill and extreme. I’d vote for her in a second for senator, but for president I’m just not sure…and I’m fairly sure the country wouldn’t elect her.

While with what we know today, I’d be thinking that Romney and Daniels are the two most serious candidates, neither of them is someone who will really stoke the fire of the GOP base or of independent voters. With that, I hope that someone else rides in, someone with intelligence, experience, and who oozes competence even if not charisma (ala the advice of Charles Krauthammer.) The bad news is that I still can’t imagine who that person is. The good news is that it’s still early.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Health Insurance Is Not “Commerce”

by Brian T. Schwartz | 5:30 am, April 12, 2011

In The National Law Journal, Independence Institute scholars David Kopel and Rob Natelson argue that health insurance is not “commerce” as used in the U.S. Constitution.

Objectivism: Hsieh Summarizes Rand’s Philosophy

by Ari Armstrong | 12:09 am, April 12, 2011

Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is an integrated philosophy, not just a political view, Diana Hsieh explained April 6 at Liberty On the Rocks.

Read My Lips: Lots More Taxes

by PerlStalker | 12:07 am, April 12, 2011

With the 2011 Federal budget mostly out of the way, the pieces are being set for the next big budget fight. Thanks to Paul Ryan and his terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad budget (from the Democrat’s perspective), Congress is about to have a very ser…

Pace Positioning for 2012 Run; Opposes Bipartisan Budget

by PerlStalker | 10:55 pm, April 11, 2011

As almost anyone who hasn’t spent the entire winter on the slopes knows, Colorado is looking at a rather significant budget hole in the FY 2011 budget. The good news is that the state has confiscated more money than they expected so, instead of facing …

Troops to Receive Full Mid-month Pay on April 15th

by Mr. Bob | 1:32 pm, April 11, 2011

By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON (NNS) — All service members will receive their full mid-month pay they have earned in their April 15th paychecks, Pentagon officials said April 11.”Basically, all active duty and reserve servic…

Expanded ‘Values of Harry Potter’ Addresses Psychology, Government, and Media

by Ari Armstrong | 12:38 pm, April 11, 2011

Colorado political writer Ari Armstrong releases the Expanded Edition of his book, Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles, April 21.The new edition adds eight new essays to the original 2008 book. Those essays include:* “The Psychology of Harry Po…

D.C. Voucher Program Renewed: Rounding Up Reactions, Controlling My Exuberance

by Eddie | 12:30 pm, April 11, 2011

So I hear the federal government came really close to shutting down this past weekend. Bigger people than me can tell you whether the last-minute deal to avert a shutdown was in total a good deal or not. But I do know one aspect of the deal that is definitely praiseworthy: namely, that the SOAR [...]

Tea Partiers, rejoice!

by Rossputin | 5:44 am, April 11, 2011

While driving home from my radio show on Sunday night, I heard a caller on a nationally syndicated show suggest that the Tea Party movement might be disheartened by the level of spending cuts agreed to by John Boehner in the federal budget for the rest of this fiscal year. That amount, about $38.5 billion, argued the caller, was so much less than the $61 billion they started at, not to mention the $100 billion that some conservative and Tea Party candidates campaigned on, that Tea Partiers might just shake their heads, wonder if it’s worth working so hard for candidates if this is all they can do, and pull back from their intensity which has helped so many Republicans get elected.

First, I doubt this will be the majority reaction among Tea Partiers, though I do think it will be somewhat common.

Second, I think someone common is much more common than it should be.

Tea Partiers should keep in mind that the Democrats control the Senate and, more importantly, we have arguably the most leftist president in our nation’s history. Yes, there was a fair bit of talk about wanting to cut $61 billion, as a pro-rated cut for what would be $100 billion over a full year, but there was also talk of the Republicans actually looking to cut less than what was cut in the end. When you add in the spending reductions included in the recent continuing resolutions, the GOP has accomplished an amazing thing, cutting well over $40 billion of spending in half a fiscal year in an Obama presidency with Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader.

Yes, it’s very small compared to the size of our problem. But it is still a minor miracle and one which the Republican Party can and should be proud (for the first time in years, to paraphrase Michelle Obama). Perhaps more importantly, this represents a tremendous victory for the Tea Party. You may hear some relatively new-to-politics or simply unrealistic activists complaining that the cuts were too small. More likely, you’ll hear left-wing bloggers, reporters, and columnists trying to make it sound like Tea Partiers are or should be disappointed. They want the Tea Party to lose its fire and motivation.

Don’t let the left or naive if well-meaning conservatives downplay the results of this negotiation. The results were as good as they could have been. The ONLY political winners from this showdown were John Boehner and the GOP, period.

Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good. Tea Partiers, rejoice!

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Why to retain burdensome 1099 tax-reporting requirement

by Brian T. Schwartz | 5:30 am, April 11, 2011

Taking [the 1099 reporting requirement] off the table risks losing that community’s commitment to the complete defeat of Obamacare. Repealing the 1099 reporting requirement would be a Pyrrhic victory in the struggle against Obamacare — exactly the type of bipartisanship we don’t need.

Atlas Shrugged Movie Trivia

by Ari Armstrong | 3:52 am, April 11, 2011

Get ready for the Atlas Shrugged movie! Try to answer these seven questions about Ayn Rand’s novel. Diana Hsieh asked the questions at the April 6 Liberty On the Rocks in Denver.Here are the questions:1. What does John Galt’s motor use as its power sou…