Quin Hillyer: Pawlenty’s bigger failing

by Rossputin | 7:01 am, June 17, 2011

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1029-pawlentys-bigger-failing

Quin Hillyer has written a tremendous note explaining that Tim Pawlenty’s refusal to criticize Mitt Romney’s acceptance of a state-level individual (health insurance) mandate was bad for all conservatives, not just for Pawlenty.

It’s a must read:

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1029-pawlentys-bigger-failing

Norquist gets ethanol wrong

by Rossputin | 6:52 am, June 17, 2011

Yesterday, the Senate approved an amendment which would eliminate subsidies to the ethanol industry and eliminate the import tax on foreign ethanol.

The 73-27 vote combined 40 Democrats with 33 Republicans for a super-majority, but the measure still faces substantial hurdles as it is attached to a bill which may never become law. Also, President Obama has stated objections to eliminating the ethanol subsidy and it’s not at all clear that the final bill which includes the amendment would pass with a veto-proof majority.

The most interesting fireworks were, surprisingly, not between Corn Belt state parasites and the rest of the nation’s taxpayers. Instead it’s the fight between Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) who wants to repeal these subsidies and the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

In short, Norquist argues that repealing the subsidy – which is in the form of a tax credit – represents a tax hike and therefore a violation of the Americans for Tax Reform Pledge to eschew any tax increases.

Coburn argues that the subsidy is simply a transfer of money from taxpayers to a politically-favored industry. Therefore repealing the subsidy is not a tax increase and has the added benefit of removing government from picking winners and losers among industries.

Norquist is a powerful figure in Washington, D.C. Tom Coburn seems intent on taking him down a notch. That is a questionable goal given Norquist’s proven effectiveness in keeping politicians in line on tax votes. Coburn is right to let ethanol “stand on its own two feet” (if it can), but the internecine fight between him and Norquist is a bad idea for all who want limited, low-tax government.

Norquist, who understands politics as well as anyone, knows that his point will be picked up by Democrats such as the eely Chuck Schumer who is already arguing that by repealing the ethanol subsidy Republicans are demonstrating that they’re actually not against tax hikes. Schumer hopes to use this vote to argue against items in the tax code which benefit oil companies despite the fact that oil companies do not get similar industry-tailored subsidies to those that the ethanol industry gets. Schumer’s argument is unlikely to find acceptance outside of the likes of the Huffington Post and MSNBC. Nevertheless, his rhetoric underscores Norquist’s political quandary.

Rational Americans know that removing a tax credit for a politically-favored industry is not a tax increase but rather a tax cut for the rest of us, and further that favoring a particular industry is not an appropriate role for government. That’s especially the case as voters wake up to the critical situation with our national debt and deficit. Even the most ardent tax cutters should be allowed to recognize that tax credits for some simply mean higher taxes, either now or later, for the rest of us.

One important clarification: Grover Norquist is not against eliminating the ethanol subsidy; he was and is for it. What he argued is that government will simply spend the amount that it doesn’t deliver through the subsidy and that therefore repealing the subsidy is a tax increase. Therefore, in order to stay true to the Pledge’s call that any legislation that increases some tax(es) must decrease other tax(es) at least as much, Norquist was supporting combining the subsidy elimination with the passage of an amendment by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) which would have simultaneously eliminated estate taxes. When the DeMint Amendment was unable to get a vote, Norquist felt he had no choice but to oppose the stand-alone repeal of the ethanol subsidy.

I’m all for the tax Pledge which Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform gets (usually Republican) politicians to sign. And I’m hesitant to second-guess a guy as smart as Grover Norquist. But I wonder if the usually savvy Norquist is making a mistake on this one, allowing the Pledge to be used to handcuff America to bad economic policy.

Gallup downplays bad news for Obama

by Rossputin | 6:29 am, June 17, 2011

I just loved (that’s sarcasm) the way Gallup prefaced the results of their recent Obama vs. Generic Republican poll results in their e-mail update: “A generic Republican presidential candidate has a slight but not statistically meaningful edge over Barack Obama, 44% to 39%, in registered voters’ preferences for the 2012 presidential election. Historical data from June in the year before an election have not been very predictive of the outcome.”

Though it’s the language one might expect from a Democrat spin-meister, I’ll give Gallup the benefit of the doubt regarding any motivation behind such language. In my view, Gallup’s language understates just how bad this news is for President Obama.

Let me stipulate that Gallup’s assertion is true that this poll, based on past history, is not highly predictive. (One then has to wonder why they bother with it.)

But to argue that it’s not statistically significant seems an excuse too far.

First, President Obama trails the generic Republican by 5% while the notes to the poll give it “95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.”

Second, the last time the same poll was taken – a month ago – Obama held a 3 point lead over a Republican-to-be-named-later. Thus, the swing is a large 8%, an amount which can’t possibly be statistically insignificant. (And again, if it is, then this poll question should never be asked in this way.)

Finally, it’s one thing for an incumbent to trail in polls against a particular opponent. But it’s another thing entirely to trail a generic, nameless, faceless candidate. In the two prior election cycles where there was no front-runner at this point in the election cycle, Gallup polled the question of the incumbent versus a generic member of the other party. In both cases, the incumbent had a huge lead – although George H.W. Bush ended up losing to Bill Clinton. For Barack Obama to trail a generic Republican right now shows far more weakness than Gallup would have us believe.

Capitalism is freedom.

by David K Williams Jr | 4:01 pm, June 16, 2011

In his article on criminal charges against self-described anarchist Amelia Nicol (“Short Fuse”), author Josiah M. Hesse used the phrase “the authoritarian demands of capitalism.”He was describing the mindset of Nicol, so I will not attribute the belief…

Capitalism is freedom.

by David K Williams Jr | 4:01 pm, June 16, 2011

In his article on criminal charges against self-described anarchist Amelia Nicol (“Short Fuse”), author Josiah M. Hesse used the phrase “the authoritarian demands of capitalism.”He was describing the mindset of Nicol, so I will not attribute the belief…

Capitalism is freedom.

by David K Williams Jr | 4:01 pm, June 16, 2011

In his article on criminal charges against self-described anarchist Amelia Nicol (“Short Fuse”), author Josiah M. Hesse used the phrase “the authoritarian demands of capitalism.”He was describing the mindset of Nicol, so I will not attribute the belief…

Capitalism is freedom.

by David K Williams Jr | 4:01 pm, June 16, 2011

In his article on criminal charges against self-described anarchist Amelia Nicol (“Short Fuse”), author Josiah M. Hesse used the phrase “the authoritarian demands of capitalism.”He was describing the mindset of Nicol, so I will not attribute the belief…

Has the War on Drugs Been a Success or a Failure?

by amanda | 12:28 pm, June 16, 2011

[ June 17, 2011; 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm. ] Determine the answer for yourself this Friday at a debate hosted by Liberty on the Rocks titled, “Examining the War on Drugs 40-Years Later: Is it Worth the Cost?”

When: Friday, June 17 from 6:30-9PM
Where: Denver Open Media, 700 Kalamath Street in Denver
What: Cocktail Reception/Free Appetizers & Debate

RSVP on Facebook

Friday, June 17, 2011 marks the 40th [...]

Bye, bye pervert

by Rossputin | 12:28 pm, June 16, 2011

When Anthony Weiner finally, mercifully, officially announced his resignation, a voice from the back of the room in Brooklyn yelled out “Bye, bye, pervert!” Other people were also yelling less than complimentary things toward the humiliated congressman.

I can’t say I’m sorry to see this guy go. He’s a rabid leftist whose judgment – more due to the lies and misdirection following his Internet dalliances – is not fit for a member of congress.

If he had simply told the truth right away, he’d almost certainly still be in office, not least because the media was so desperate to support him.

Weiner’s tone in his resignation speech was much like someone who still intends to have a political future. In a world where some people are still interested in re-electing Barack Obama, anything is indeed possible. At the end of the day, people get the government they deserve.

What Pre-Revolution Pamphlets Can Tell Us About Our Constitution

by Jon Caldara | 11:53 am, June 16, 2011

Rob Natelson’s constitutional scholarship is unprecedented. If you only looked at his latest book, The Original Constitution: What It Said and Meant, you’d be astounded at the amount of never before seen facts and figures about our founding. Beyond just his newest book, Rob’s research has taken him to original documents from the 17th century [...]

Unhappy Anniversary: The Drug War Turns Forty

by Mike Krause | 10:27 am, June 16, 2011

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the contemporary war on drugs in the United States. In 1970, a Democrat-controlled Congress passed and Republican President Richard M. Nixon signed into law the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control act, which consolidated and updated all previous federal drug laws. Included in the legislation was [...]

Trimming Bureaucracy, Adding Military School?: Latest Falcon 49 Innovation

by Eddie | 10:03 am, June 16, 2011

The state’s most under-reported K-12 education story of the year — at least under-reported outside Colorado Springs — remains the deep and fast-paced innovation efforts in Falcon School District 49. Thankfully, reporters at the Gazette continue to keep tabs on developments. I wanted to share the latest two with you.
In one key cost-saving move, the [...]

Corporate Welfare and Tourism

by Ari Armstrong | 8:38 am, June 16, 2011

Today the Denver Post published a story by Jason Blevins claiming that corporate welfare for the tourism industry is responsible for the growth of Colorado tourism. I sent him the following letter:Dear Mr. Blevins,Your “news” article is essentially a r…

Breaking: NY Times – Weiner resigning

by Rossputin | 7:37 am, June 16, 2011

At 9:30 Eastern time this morning, the NY Times reported that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is resigning from Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/nyregion/anthony-d-weiner-tells-friends-he-will-resign.html

I can’t wait to see if this guy, who’s never had a real job, can find a way to make a living in the real world.

Romney’s uphill battle — and mine

by Rossputin | 6:13 am, June 16, 2011

If the comments being made to my American Spectator (“TAS”) article about Mitt Romney “Improving His Odds” in Monday’s Republican presidential debate are representative of the mood of GOP voters, Romney may be in for tougher sledding than betting odds currently suggest. Now up close to 33%, Romney’s betting odds are more than double his nearest competitor, Tom Pawlenty (15.5), and nearly triple Texas Governor Rick Perry (whom many expect to announce a run within several weeks.) Former Utah Governor John Huntsman remains just above Perry in the betting, something which I just can’t understand.

It’s also worth noting that political bettors made some big mistakes in the last couple of election cycles. Particularly with the participation of more people betting with their hearts than with information, I find betting odds to be slightly less accurate predictors than they were just a few years ago.

Examples of comments about Romney made by TAS readers in response to my article:

• Another “go along, to get along”, watered down, “moderate conservative”.
• A human Ken doll
• I am waiting for electricity in ideas and presentation.
• We don’t need Mitt Romney or any other RINO.
• Romney is Obama-lite and George W. Bush II – a Trojan horse liberal, even more dangerous than a real liberal.
• If I want a used car sales person, I’ll go to a used car lot.
• (And the comment of the day, so far) I’d vote for Davey from “Davey and Goliath” before I’d vote for Mitt Romney. Better hair, less wooden, and some principles.

There are some who, like the majority of Republicans in the recent Gallup poll, focus more on beating Obama than on “agreement on all issues”, but at least in our non-scientific group of self-selected TAS comment contributors, they are the distinct minority.

Again, if TAS commenters are representative of the GOP base, Romney would stand a real risk of being knocked off the front-runner pedestal if any more conservative candidate can put on an even half-decent performance, showing both principle and electability.

Despite the intensity of the above comments, I do think most Republicans would grudgingly support Romney if he ends up being the nominee. The prospect of another Obama term is just too terrible for principled conservatives to imagine.

Regarding TAS comments about me, which were only slightly less negative than the comments about Romney:

In re-reading my article on the Republican debate, I don’t see that I supported Mitt Romney. I just criticized him less than usual. I reported on how the media, those betting on politics, and those using social media reacted to the debate. I reported on the Gallup poll mentioned above, suggesting that my own thinking was drifting more toward beating Obama than toward complete agreement on principle. And I concluded by saying that “I still want to like Mitt Romney”, which strikes me as fairly clear that I don’t like him yet, a point reinforced just a few paragraphs earlier when I mention several of Romney’s policy positions which I find troubling.

So it’s quite interesting how many readers accuse me (and TAS by extension) of being “in the tank” for Romney.

A couple more points on this: First, I have, on the very same American Spectator pages and just in the past few weeks, written strongly against Romney, preferring both Daniels (before he decided not to run) and Pawlenty to him. TAS’s top story yesterday was comparing Mitt Romney in a none-too-flattering way to Nelson Rockefeller. Hardly the work of writers or a publication in the tank for Mitt.

Second, it seems that Americans have been subjected to so much opinion masquerading as news or analysis that they see opinion and agenda in any piece of writing, especially in one that isn’t critical of someone they dislike – even in a piece that’s intended to be much more reporting than editorializing. It says a lot about how people perceive reporting – and none of what it says is good.

Finally, I would note that I’ve had a couple of conversations with a friend who is very close to the Romney campaign in which I suggested that good (conservative) policy is good politics these days and that Mitt Romney is making a big mistake by triangulating right out of the gate. Demotivating the GOP base risks the same outcome that McCain had (and deserved.)

My current operating theory on Mitt’s taking the pro-ethanol subsidy position and expressing belief in at least some human contribution to “climate change” is that he’s more afraid of the “flip-flopper” label than of the reaction to the position since these are views he’s not only held in the past but actually published in a book. After all, the DNC is already out with an ad pointing out his various changing positions. (And who can forget the great ad with John Kerry windsurfing to the left and to the right, changing with the blowing of the wind? Romney really doesn’t want to be the GOP version of that guy, but his record is what it is and he might not escape that tag.)

Other thoughts:

• Those who suggest that there should be a third party candidacy if Romney is the GOP nominee are ignoring lessons of history – unless they want Barack Obama to win. (Take a look at the results in the most recent Colorado governor’s race as an example, and of course there’s Perot giving the 1992 election to Bill Clinton.)
• Disagreeing with Donald Trump’s demonization of China does not make one “pro-China” as a commenter termed Romney. To be clear: Trump’s view of international trade is not just stupid, it’s dangerous. Ask Smoot and Hawley how that sort of stuff worked out for them.

I understand people’s discomfort with Mitt Romney because I share it. I want to like him because I think he can beat Obama, but he has to stop giving Democrat-style answers so frequently if he wants to earn my support or, clearly, the support of American Spectator readers. In the meantime, I remain not just open to, but hopeful for, the emergence of, as William F. Buckley encouraged us to seek, the most conservative electable candidate.

Health care “reform” and “accountable care” vs. doctors’ autonomy

by Brian T. Schwartz | 5:30 am, June 16, 2011

Under ObamaCare, doctors “lose their ability to practice medicine as they envisioned. The government will be making so many decisions about how doctors will be paid, what they will be paid, and what type of practice they can establish and operate.”

The Party of Ideas

by Rossputin | 4:46 am, June 16, 2011

Another thing which occurred to me during Monday’s Republican presidential debate (and which I neglected to include in my TAS article) is that the strength of the GOP field, the quality of the debate, and the physical and philosophical diversity among the candidates, is a major positive for the Republican Party.

It’s not just the party of old white southern guys.

The left has tried, with some success in recent years, to tar the GOP not just as the “Party of No” but more damagingly as “the Party of No Ideas.” Events like Monday’s make that argument all but impossible to sustain – which does not mean that Democrats and their useful idiots in the media won’t keep trying.

Monday’s debate is the latest, and one of the most visible, pieces of evidence that it’s Republicans who have ideas and Democrats who are stuck in the failed Keynesian mud.

Greeks Bearing Grifts

by Joshua Sharf | 12:01 am, June 16, 2011

And if the threat of starvation and a southern land rush weren’t enough here on Disaster Wednesday, there’s always Greece: …But conditions in European markets are deteriorating. The main risk from Greece has always been contagion, and that process is already under way. Most directly, prices of Portuguese and Irish bonds have fallen sharply, with [...]

Snow Shovel-Ready

by Joshua Sharf | 11:39 pm, June 15, 2011

Michael Mann may get some use out of that hockey stick yet. After a particularly quiet solar minimum, solar physicists are preparing for the possibility that sunspots may be scarce for a while: Hill’s own research focuses on surface pulsations of the Sun and their relationship with sunspots, and his team has already used their [...]

Snow Shovel-Ready

by Joshua Sharf | 10:04 pm, June 15, 2011

Michael Mann may get some use out of that hockey stick yet. After a particularly quiet solar minimum, solar physicists are preparing for the possibility that sunspots may be scarce for a while: Hill’s own research focuses on surface pulsations of the Sun and their relationship with sunspots, and his team has already used their [...]

Use Tax Nightmare Continues

by Ari Armstrong | 8:48 pm, June 15, 2011

Legislative spending plus depressed tax revenues have generated a budget crunch in Colorado. So you’d expect state government to encourage people to pay taxes, maybe even seem grateful for it, wouldn’t you?But consider the incentive structure for the “…

June 20th Meetup — Do Elections Matter?

by redrocks | 5:29 pm, June 15, 2011

Independence Institute’s Justin Longo – Up On The Roof!
“Why Elections Don’t Matter…but the Median Voter Does”
Are you “Fed” up with politics as usual?  Were you looking for inspiration from the CNN debate?  Stuck inside a party box?  Then it’s time to challenge the status quo of stinkin’ thinkin’ with our generation Y guest, Justin Longo, [...]

Who Pays For Unemployment Benefits?

by Vande Krol | 3:21 pm, June 15, 2011

Imagine you just interviewed for a new job. The employer tells you “You’re a great match for our company, and we’d be excited to have you work for us. We offer good pay, flexible hours, a comfortable work environment, and great benefits.” …

Jared Polis: Privatize the Post Office

by Jon Caldara | 2:35 pm, June 15, 2011

There’s a little known gem by an unlikely author deep in the archives of the Independence Institute’s literature. It’s status as a gem is three-fold. One, the author might surprise you considering what policy positions he’s most known for. Two, the Issue Paper in question is a great piece of research and writing. And three, [...]

Colorado K-12 Hiring Keeps Pace with Student Enrollment–At Least Through 2010

by Eddie | 12:23 pm, June 15, 2011

I so often enjoy reading the online work of Mike Antonucci at the Education Intelligence Agency, if for no other reason than he asks the questions and does the homework that so very few others are willing to do. On his Intercepts blog today, he adds some badly needed context and perspective on the supposed [...]

Romney wins debate by not losing

by Rossputin | 8:02 am, June 15, 2011

Experts agree! Monday’s Republican presidential debate yielded two clear winners: Mitt Romney, the current front-runner who won by not losing, thanks to kid glove treatment from his fellow GOP participants. And Michele Bachmann who, while not surprising those of us who have met her and heard her speak, came across as energetic, intelligent, and aggressive (all of which she is.) She made a solid first impression on those who knew little of her prior to the event.

Tim Pawlenty’s performance was workmanlike but disappointing in energy and charisma. As Jim Antle correctly noted, Pawlenty’s refusal to back up his memorable “Obamneycare” talking point means he should not have made it in the first place. The other participants did as anticipated, with Newt Gingrich perhaps exceeding expectations and Herman Cain a slight disappointment. Ron Paul was Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum was Rick Santorum. Nary a surprise from either.

Betting odds seem to agree with the talking heads’ take: Romney’s odds of getting the nomination as determined by betting on intrade.com have jumped from 29.5% to 31.5% overnight, his highest odds of the year. Meanwhile, Tim Pawlenty has been drifting lower following a brief boost after Mitch Daniels’ exit from contention, with a major drop from about 18% to about 15% following the debate. Bachmann’s chance of being the nominee moved from 5% to just over 6%, not a huge move but a new high for her. Betting odds among the other participants were little changed. In other words, Pawlenty lost 3 points, of which two went to Romney and one to Bachmann, much in line with how judges would have scored the debate itself.

Please read the rest of my article for the American Spectator here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/15/improving-his-odds

Wisconsin State Supreme Court upholds collective bargaining law

by Rossputin | 5:38 am, June 15, 2011

Late Tuesday afternoon, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling which had blocked implementation of the controversial Republican-passed law limiting certain aspects of public employee union collective bargaining.

The 4-3 ruling was, much like our routine 5-4 votes from the federal Supreme Court, symptomatic of a corrosive partisanship infecting the judiciary. The leader of the court’s “liberal wing” called the majority decision “hasty”,  “partisan”, and “reach(ing) unsupported conclusions.” And while she attempts some serious legal arguments to make her case, left-leaning jurists at this point have, by their repeated determination to make law rather than interpret it as written, become little more than lawyers crying conservative wolf.

Is there anybody left outside the Democratic Party or union leadership who still believes that Democrat judges in America don’t consider their party’s political wishes in the top few factors when determining how to rule on a case?

Now that the law, after much angst and Democrat desertion of their posts, is to be implemented, the people of Wisconsin can take a little time for sober reflection, including seeing their state’s budget problems not get as much worse as they otherwise would have, and then decide who they want to reelect or unelect in 2010 (as well as the few unlucky subjects of recall petitions who will face reelection or unelection in the next two months.)

Elections have consequences. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court was right not to try to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the duly elected representatives of the people when the only question before them was an irrelevant technicality.

GE, We Bring Bad Ideas To Light

by Joshua Sharf | 12:04 am, June 15, 2011

In  a prior post, I mentioned that Obama’s favorite courtier CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, was part of a Jobs & Competitiveness Council, ostensibly tasked with finding ways to put Americans to work.  It’s the kind of thing that government always says it’s doing, anyway.  After all, we have a Commerce Department, a Labor Department, an Education [...]

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules

by Al Maurer | 8:31 pm, June 14, 2011

The Wisconsin Supreme Court overturns liberal activist judge’s ruling to halt the collective bargaining law.

Obama Blames Bad Economy on Automation

by PerlStalker | 8:29 pm, June 14, 2011

From Fox Nation via Gateway Pundit:

President Obama explained to NBC News that the reason companies aren’t hiring is not because of his policies, it’s because the economy is so automated. … “There are some structural issues with our economy …

« 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