Colorado House Majority Leader Paul Weissmann and his gang of Democratic friends have learned that with the aid of the Colorado Supreme Court, every tax credit and exemption in the books is subject to elimination despite the Taxpayer’s Bill Of Rights (TABOR) amendment. If the Colorado State legislature and State Supreme Court has learned anything, it’s that the political will to raise tax revenue can be far greater than any State Constitution.

The Colorado News Agency reported that the Majority Leader, Paul Weissmann is proposing a “dynamic analysis” study for the remaining tax breaks the Democrats haven’t abolished.

The measure proposed by Democratic House Majority Leader, Paul Weismann  of Lousiville,  would direct the General Assembly’s Legislative Council to prepare a report that reviews each tax exemption and credit at prescribed intervals.  The reports would then be provided to the legislature for their consideration.

Now I wonder what such a report might say? Might it mention something along the lines of increased tax revenue? Well, that’s certainly what Weissmann and other members of the anti-tax break cartel are counting on anyway. Nothing’s easier than asking to repeal another tax credit with a report showing how much more money can be taken from Colorado businesses and citizens to pay for government services that Colorado businesses and citizens can’t afford. The only question is how much revenue they “think” they can take in since they can’t  measure the unintended and unforeseen consequences in every tax credit elimination. You can however see the obvious. If you transfer wealth from the private sector into the State government coffers, businesses and people have less money. Rather than sensibly making cuts (the world won’t come to an end) to make up the budget difference, Rep. Paul Weissmann would rather search for more money from Coloradans in one of the hardest economic times in decades.

Also reported:

Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, said dynamic analysis has been bandied about over the years, but he questions the notion of singling out tax credits and exemptions as the sole barometer of decisions regarding tax policy.

“To say we’re going to apply this concept just to tax credits and exemptions — the only action that can possibly be taken is we’re going to eliminate the tax credit or exemption,” said Lambert.  “That’s the only actionable thing.”

Rep. Lambert is correct. “…the only actionable thing” the Democrats will try to do is eliminate the tax break. Do they expect the “dynamic analysis’ to say eliminating a tax exemption  or credit will cost the state money?

As Clear The Bench Colorado aptly concluded:

What, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases weren’t enough, so now it’s the “Horrible Hundred?”  (Actually, I only counted 66 statutory tax exemptions – although some statutes account for multiple items – so, minus the “Dirty Dozen”, perhaps it’s only the “Filthy Fifty.” Take the “New Tax Lottery” survey for yourself and see how many new taxes YOU might get to pay!)

The argument you may  hear from some legislators is that these some of these tax credits and/or exemptions are corporate welfare. Of course that will lead them to argue that companies and whatever various special interest are not paying their fair share. They will claim that such an unbalanced tax system isn’t fair and “the  children” need the funds for education (not that the parents of these children need jobs and financial security) Granted, most tax credits were granted as a result of political favor and ideally there would not be any special politically favored tax breaks. But the reality is that these current tax credits and exemptions came about and sometimes for good reasons. If a tax credit or exemption keeps capital in the private hands where a job might be saved, that is all the better. The only argument the Democrat majority have is saying that because the state isn’t robbing everybody as much as others, the state should robbing some more as the  robbing is justified since the state spent all the money it robbed last time…whew…that’s a lot of robbing.

Allow me to help Rep. Weissmann and friends save Colorado significant time and money. Instead of paying for a study, I’ll just give you the short version of the “dynamic analysis” when tax breaks are eliminated. State revenue will rise, private jobs will be lost, prices will rise, the size and cost of the State government will grow, there will be less capital for investment and savings, economic growth will be stifled, and freedom will diminish.

                          

The criminals listed below are the Colorado Congressmen who violated the Constitution by favoring the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’.

Rep. John T. Salazar [D-CO] District 3
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO] District 1
Rep. Jared Polis [D-CO] District 2
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D-CO] District 7
Rep. Betsy Markey [D-CO] District 4

                          

IslandPacket.com posted an article by Tony Bartelme of postandcourier.com that illustrates the ever growing number of video surveillance in Federal U.S. Parks.

Last month, Herman Jacob took his daughter and her friend camping in the Francis Marion National Forest. While poking around for some firewood, Jacob noticed a wire. He pulled on it and followed it to a video camera and antenna.

The camera didn’t have any markings identifying its owner, so Jacob took it home and called law enforcement agencies to find out if it was theirs, all the while wondering why someone would station a video camera in an isolated clearing in the woods.

He eventually received a call from Mark Heitzman of the U.S. Forest Service.

In a stiff voice, Heitzman ordered Jacob to turn it back over to his agency, explaining that it had been set up to monitor “illicit activities.” Jacob returned the camera but felt uneasy.

The article then explains that,

In various cases, judges ruled that a video camera is effectively an extension of a law enforcement officer’s eyes and ears. In other words, if an officer can eyeball a campground in person, it’s OK to station a video camera in his or her place.

I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t get that “land of the free” feeling when law enforcement officer’s are “eyeballing” me while I camp. The last time I saw someone get “eyeballed” was on the former HBO series “Oz” and it didn’t turn out real well for the guy getting “eyeballed.”

Now go out and enjoy the great outdoors but remember to comb your hair and tidy up as you might be on candid camera.

                          

On Monday, the Colorado House Judiciary Committee will vote on HB 1284, a bill that would regulate medical marijuana dispensaries.

No public testimony will be allowed at this hearing.  However, it is important that the Committee members hear from you — before they vote.

Please click here to urge your legislators to make specific changes to the bill that will benefit medical marijuana patients.

Thanks,

The ASA Team

P.S.  For more background, please visit our ally Sensible Colorado.

                          

Example of innocent child playing recklessly while uncaring parents stand by

Have you seen situations across Colorado like this…(R rated – for possible injury)

While I typically hate to post photos of such dangerous situations, the current epidemic of children operating non-motorized vehicles has gotten out of control.

Fortunately, as the Post reports, “Bill sponsor Rep. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, promoted House Bill 1147 as a way to prevent life-changing brain injuries in children.”

This bill would include the, “Use of a bicycle helmet or other appropriate helmet for children ages 2 through 17 while using a bicycle, scooter, skateboard or inline skates on public streets.”

In a rare bi-partisan event, the Post also reports that,  ”Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, said that if the state is going to protect noggins, it might as well protect other sensitive parts, and he backed an amendment requiring boys to wear a ‘crush-resistant athletic cup’ as well.”

Example of innocent child protected by the state of Colorado

Since we have bi-partisan support to save Colorado’s little noggins (and maybe family jewels) we might as well go further and make it mandatory for all children on public and private streets. What’s good for the two year old peddling his tricycle on the sidewalk surely must be good for the one year old infant learning to walk.

With new laws comes new enforcement as well and don’t fear as the bill provides for stiff penalties for helmet law breakers. As Denver Daily reports under the bill, law enforcement officers could issue an “informational traffic citation” to minors aged 2-18 who are riding bikes on public streets without a helmet.

Colorado’s finest will soon be able to patrol the streets ridding Colorado of dangerous minors daring to roll their HotWheels down the sidewalk without the proper protection. Well, actually, that’s not true entirely. HB 1147 would only allow an “informational traffic citation” which has no real legal consequences but police will still be allowed to scare the crap out of the kids and that might just be enough to end the “Death Race” on Colorado’s streets.

                          

Politico reported that,

As the results were displayed on twin large screens in the ballroom — and even before Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio could announce who had won — a cascade of boos came down from a crowd that views Paul and his fervent supporters as irritants. Paul’s backers responded with cheers, though, when their candidate was then proclaimed by Fabrizio as the winner.

A spokesman for the conference rushed over to reporters after the announcement to make sure they had heard the unmistakable boos when the screen first showed Paul had won the straw poll.

CPAC 2010 drew more voters than any time in CPAC’s history with 2,395 participants, up from 1,757 in 2009 and 1,558 in 2008. How do we explain Ron Paul’s popularity at CPAC despite many conservative’s grumbling and booing at his success?  ” The results are skewed by Paul’s popularity amongst younger voters” say many different talking heads. Yes, 54% of the voters were between the ages of 18-25. That definitely is a major factor as Ron Paul’s popularity among college students has been apparent since his Presidential campaign.

However, according to the polling data, there was actually a smaller percentage of college voters than 2009 when Mitt Romney won the poll. Romney’s percentage of the vote actually increased from 20% to 22% which indicates that Ron Paul either took votes away from Palin, Pawlenty, Gingrich, and Huckabee among others or, a whole lot of Ron Paul’s supporters came to CPAC to see him and represent his views. The general impression around the blogosphere is we should dismiss this straw poll. However to dismiss the poll entirely would be a mistake.

If we look at the other polling data at CPAC we find many interesting things:

• Of the two issues participants found most important were “Reducing the Size of Federal Government” and “Reducing Government Spending” (two issues that are complimentary as one begets the other)
• Cutting Federal Spending was considered the top priority Republicans should consider when it comes to fiscal policy (It was like a tent revival with so many speakers being reborn with the limited government church…again)
• A 37% disapproval rating of Republican members of Congress (No guessing as to how the Paul supporters voted in this one…Is there anybody listening?)
• A 2% favorable rating of Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi (that’s around 40 people voting who felt really awkward at CPAC according to my embarrassingly low math skills)
• Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee won the most unfavorable person at CPAC award with a 44% disapproval rating (it’s all part of his bringing people together plan)
• Jim DeMint has the lowest unfavorable rating making Jim Demint, “Mr. Popular” (DeMint happens to love Ron Paul’s Audit The Fed bill….the irony of it all)

My conclusion from the poll:

• Ron Paul can turn out the most active young conservatives (libertarian leaning) of any potential candidate…period (they aren’t going away)
• Cutting spending and government is clearly the #1 issue for the CPAC attendees with the “war on terror” a distant 3rd (it’s the economy stupid)
• More than half the attendees feel the Republicans will pick up 30-40 seats in 2010 and they may be right (1994 again?)
• There is an small contingent of anti-war/non-interventionists conservatives in the GOP who are becoming quite vocal (sorry neo-cons)
• Ron Paul’s economic message and ideas are taking hold even if his popularity among mainstream Republicans isn’t (60 appearances on FOX News helps)
• There is no clear cut front running candidate for 2012 (as long the leadership in the GOP remains the same this may not change)

Overall, it appears as if reducing the size of federal government and spending are the top concerns for conservatives at CPAC. How future prospective front-runners like Romney and Palin address this could determine their future. If Ron Paul does run in 2012, I would expect an even bigger battle at GOP county and state conventions than 2008 and it certainly got ugly in some places.

                          

Failure to match other countries’ efforts in clean-energy development could mean the U.S. will swap a dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on foreign technology, he said.

“If we don’t start moving,” Chu said at a news conference after his speech, “other countries are moving, and they will look at us as a market.”

Translated, this statement means, if the U.S. Government doesn’t spend as much money as all the other countries in the world we may have to purchase clean technologies from them if they develop a technology that is carbon friendly and cheap (hurry, hide the kids, that would be awful.) However, as Secretary Chu must be aware, the Federal Government recently has given millions of dollars to foreign firms for renewable energy research as reported by the Investigative Reporting Workshop. Apparently, the buck doesn’t stop at Steven Chu’s desk at the Department of Energy.

Unfortunately, it is a near axiom that when government distributes money for any project or endeavor, the politically connected receive the funds. If Secretary Chu is seriously interested in winning the “clean-energy race” and not “falling irreversibly behind other countries” then maybe the Department of Energy could stop giving taxpayers wages to businesses in other countries.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle are guilty of initiating grants for “research” with albeit good intentions in some cases, but disastrous results in most. For instance, not long ago, the latest rage in renewable energy was corn-based ethanol production. Despite many scientists learning early on that corn based ethanol was more inefficient, consumed far more land resources than any other renewable alternative, and increased the cost of food production, the Federal Government, at the bequest of the corn lobby, gave an inordinate percentage of research dollars to ethanol rather than other more efficient technologies.

John A. Baden, Ph.D. of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment writes,

When evaluating ethanol mandates, responsible citizens ask: “What are the probable consequences of the policy, however well intended?” Surely, ethanol is not a pure Green elixir, but rather can be an intoxicating political potion.

As Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, at Stanford says,

The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful,” Jacobson said. “Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels.” He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.

If clean-energy research is indeed a “race” then Secretary Chu and the Department of Energy should consider removing grants to foreign companies and stop awarding them for inefficient research. Otherwise, Secretary Chu and the DOE will limp along wasting millions more in our hard earned wages. The question Secreatary Chu should be asking himself is what renewable energies are the private companies researching? You know, those crazy capitalistic companies that only invest in technologies that are efficient and profitable.

                          

In 2006, Boulder voters approved the nation’s first “carbon tax,” now $21 a year per household, to fund energy-conservation programs. The city took out print ads, bought radio time, sent email alerts and promoted the campaign in city newsletters.

But Boulder’s carbon emissions edged down less than 1% from 2006 through 2008, the most recent data available

Why can’t the city of Boulder get these carbon emissions down?

“What we’ve found is that for the vast majority of people, it’s exceedingly difficult to get them to do much of anything,” says Kevin Doran, a senior research fellow at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Yes Kevin, controlling the sheeple can be difficult at times. As Paul Sheldon says,

“We still have a long way to go,” says Paul Sheldon, a consultant who advises the city on conservation. Residents “should be driving high-efficiency vehicles, and they’re not. They should be carpooling, and they’re not.” And yes, he adds, they should be changing their own light bulbs—and they’re not.

What is wrong with these people in Boulder? Not changing your own light bulb is a blatant violation of rule #13466453 (2)(c) of the People’s Republic of Boulder Environmental Action Handbook .

Another problem contributing to global warming is flat screen TVs…that’s right, the big flat TV screens.

A local home-theater installer says most customers purchase a power strip, so they can turn off the outlet when they’re not watching. But during the Christmas holidays, 65-inch flat-screen TVs flew off the shelves of Boulder’s ListenUp Audio/Video. “People are definitely going for bigger screens,” manager Bob Murphy says.

Not to fear though, Boulder is looking to get tough on carbon.

City officials are frustrated—and contemplating more forceful steps.

The City Council will soon consider mandating energy-efficiency upgrades to many apartments and businesses. The proposals under review would be among the most aggressive in the nation, requiring up to $4,000 a rental unit in new appliances, windows and other improvements. Owners of commercial property could face far larger tabs.

Boulder also is going to be gracious enough to redistribute peoples tax dollars to assist people in saving energy.

Boulder plans to spend about $1.5 million in city funds and $370,000 in federal stimulus money to hire contractors to do basic upgrades for residents.

In the program, dubbed “Two Techs in a Truck,” as many as 15 energy-efficiency teams will go door-to-door. They’ll ask home and business owners for permission to caulk windows, change bulbs and install low-flow showerheads and programmable thermostats—all at taxpayer expense. The techs will set up clothes racks in laundry rooms as a reminder to use the dryer less often. They’ll even pop into the garage and inflate tires to the optimum pressure for fuel efficiency.

If this seems a bit intrusive, don’t worry, the two techs are experts at tire pressure and,

City officials say most residents want to make these changes; they just never seem to get around to it. In a test run in a lower-income Boulder neighborhood, nearly 70% of homeowners accepted the free upgrades. “We want to take away the financial barrier and the hassle barrier,” said Kara Mertz, the city’s local environmental action manager. That may not be enough.

Not enough? Fortunately,  at about 2:00 minutes into this video, Kara Mentz, the Local Environment Action Division Manager of Boulder Colorado, suggests an additional plan to inspire people, have insulation blowing parties with cookies and tea.

If Boulder needs any more suggestions to help with their “problem”, ABC News reports that Authors Claim Pets Are More Damaging to Environment Than SUVs.

                          

Last week, RMGO and NAGR staff held a News Conference on the CSU campus to render the draft policy — which bans even permitted citizens from carrying concealed on campus — null and void.

Here is a video of the  RMGO news conference

Since CSU students have been allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus, crime has dropped. As I heard someone say on the Lew Rockwell show, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

Sign the RMGO petition against this illegal ban.

Click here to sign our petition to CSU.

You can also see the latest news — including some of the press coverage of that event — at www.rmgo.org/csu

                          

Is the ad as FactCheck.org claims misleading? Technically, H.R. 4173 does give the Federal Reserve the ability to spend up to 4 trillion dollars as Bloomberg columnist David Reilly notes:

It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule.

What FactCheck.org contends is that this is just a change to existing powers the Federal Reserve already has so there should be no worries. Granted, the Federal Reserve by virtue of rule 13 (3) of the Federal Reserve Act does have such powers:

“In unusual and exigent circumstances, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the affirmative vote of not less than five members, may …,” and then there’s a lot of technical language which essentially means that the Federal Reserve can lend money to “any individual, partnership, or corporation,” as long as certain requirements are met.

Not only have they had this power but the Fed has a history of using the power according to the Federal Reserve Branch of Minneapolis that the media on a whole as disregarded.

What H.R. 4173 does is add the amount of 4 trillion to the section 13(3). Those if favor would say this just gives a cap to the Federal Reserve. Others would say this gives the Federal Reserve a green light to go ahead and spend 4 trillion dollars; Congress just said it was okay. By adding the 4 trillion dollar amount to the bill, it is in effect, a “credit limit” to the Federal Reserves ever growing appetite for more fiat currency. This is akin a mother giving the kid the credit card prior to her trip to the mall asking the young shopper to spend a little bit but don’t max it out. What will happen? The child (Federal Reserve) will come back home filled with shopping bags proclaiming that she (Federal Reserve) didn’t want to spend that much money but the sales (banks) were too good (to big) to pass up (fail).  The bailouts aren’t over and H.R. 4173 proves just that.

The ad was paid for by the Committee for Truth in Politics which is a group out of North Carolina formed as a non-profit in September of 2008. The only board member listed is a William W. Peaslee who appears to by an attorney in Cary, N.C. The Committee for Truth in Politics has no web site, phone number, or any other information other than the original incorporation submission..essentially they are dark.

The Committe is represented by a James Bopp who has quite a history already with the Committee for Truth in Politics and other organizations with their previous anti-Obama ads.

Is this ad correct? Technically, then Senator Obama did vote for this,  but he retracted his vote immediately afterward. It did appear to be a mistake as Politico reported:

The state Senate floor transcript from the day, March 11th, 1999, includes this from Obama:  “For purpose of correction. I pressed the wrong button on that. I wanted to vote Yes.”

Mr. James Bopp also filed a suit against the FEC in October of 2008, in regards to filing a report…at all:

“We believe that the U.S. Constitution protects them from having to file that report,” says Bopp. “The problem is having to file a report at all. To be regulated at all. To be accountable to the government at all.”

On Tuesday, January 26, 2010 James Bopp issued a press release via the James Madison Center for Free Speach:

The James Madison Center for Free Speech is asking the Federal Election Commission to revise its regulations in light of the Jan. 21 landmark Supreme Court decision.

The decision, Citizens United v. FEC, recognizes that federal law banning particular corporate and union spending for political speech is unconstitutional.

The James Madison Center’s rulemaking petition, filed today, asks the FEC to state that it will not enforce the unconstitutional bans against any independent spending for political speech, including independent expenditures and electioneering communications.  The petition also asks the FEC to:

• Repeal FEC regulations insofar as they implement the bans Citizens United struck down.
• Acknowledge that the unconstitutional law no longer bans  corporations, unions, or membership organizations from engaging in independent spending for political speech beyond people such as union members or corporate board members, stockholders, executive personnel, or administrative personnel.
• Repeal the FEC regulations recognizing exceptions to the bans on (1) corporate independent expenditures and (2) corporate and union electioneering communications.  The exceptions are no longer necessary, because the bans themselves are unconstitutional.

“This is an election year.  Speakers will want to exercise the First Amendment rights to political speech Citizens United recognizes, so the FEC should adopt these regulations quickly, ” said James Bopp, Jr., general counsel for the James Madison Center.

Agree or disagree about the ad, the Committee for Truth and Politics is pushing the FEC and the courts in the proper direction towards free speech and NPR isn’t happy about it at all and seemingly worried about the secret money. In their words:

Bopp may be the nation’s most experienced lawyer in challenging campaign finance laws. For 30 years, he’s been general counsel to the National Right To Life Committee, which has spearheaded opposition to restrictions on political money. He’s also a member of the Republican National Committee and counsel to Focus on the Family and the Indiana Republican Party.

I would expect to see even more ads of this nature in the near future. While some fear corporations and groups being able to purchase these kind of ads, I would argue that aware citizens can judge on their own an ad’s legitimacy and assess the bias of the ad without the government regulating free speech to “protect” us from too much information.

                          

In Michael Riley’s article in the Denver Post entitled “Colorado Democratic delegation in dilemma on how to proceed on health care” he quotes Rep. Perlmutter in regards to the health care battle:

“It’s a mess,” said exasperated Congressman Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat from Golden, last week, noting that he’d be happy as long as Congress manages to pass a provision prohibiting insurance companies from excluding coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

“That’s still my focus, that will be my focus when it comes to health care stuff. . . . It’s a moral imperative and I think it’s a constitutional (emphasis mine) one,” he said.

Excuse me? What the heck are you talking about Edwin? Certainly not the U.S. Constitution in which no mention of “health” is written in the document. To be fair, Perlmutter isn’t the first politician or judge to liberally interpret the Constitution to fit his or her own desires but you really have to dig deep into imagination land to come up with a constitutional “right” to health care. I wonder if Ed Perlmutter even read the Constitution prior to taking his oath? It seems unlikely but what’s even scarier is the thought that he did read the Constitution and still came away with the idea that health care is a constitutional right. I shudder to think what other “rights” the next politician will conjure.

                          

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63 
No 21 
Not Sure 16

That’s the power of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, after one year of relentlessly claiming Obama is the second coming of Lenin … and Hitler!

DailyKOS gives far to much credit to the influence of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Actually, the vast majority of Congress could be charged with socialistic tendencies. Apparently, DailyKOS isn’t aware of the definition of socialism.

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

Yes 42 
No 36 
Not Sure 22

We still have over a half of Republicans who don’t think Obama was born in the US or think it’s a matter open to debate.

This question clearly was asked to paint Republicans as “crazy right-wingers” who harbor conspiracy theories.

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Yes 53 
No 14 
Not Sure 33

Sigh…

Although Sarah Palin hasn’t spent her entire career milking the teat of government, she has had more executive experience than a “community organizer.” Let’s be honest and admit that most recent presidents have had questions regarding their qualifications. In my opinion, the most important qualification is adhering to the Constitution and if we use that standard, the last truly “qualified” president we had was Grover Cleveland.

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

Yes 31 
No 36 
Not Sure 33

I bet more people think Obama is racist, but were too afraid to tell a live operator the truth.

If DailyKOS is in search of people who are racists, they just have to turn their dial to MSNBC and listen to Chris Matthews

Are marrigiages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?

Men 13 
Equal 76 
Not Sure 11

Should women work outside the home?

Yes 86 
No 4 
Not Sure 10

Phyllis Schlafly is crying. That looks a lot more enlightened than I expected, likely because the economic reality is that few people can get away with single-income homes. But whatever the reason, on this front, there’s progress.

Oops. There’s a couple of questions that didn’t go their way. Sorry to disappoint DailyKOS, but perhaps you haven’t realized that it’s 2010 and most people, let alone Republicans are cool with women working.

Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

Christ 67 
Other 15 
Not Sure 18

Two-thirds of Republicans assume anyone that is not a Christian is going to hell. It certainly makes it easier for them to dehumanize their enemies, either real or perceived.

I’m not sure which rock the DailyKOS bloggers have been living under but nearly %90 of Americans call themselves Christian. Sorry to rain on your secular parade but believing in Heaven and Jesus Christ kinda goes with the whole “Christian” theology, whether they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent.

There’s many more ridiculous questions related to gays, abortion, same-sex marriage and every other divisive issue they could conjure in the full version of DailyKOS’s poll if you are in the mood for some laughs and want examples of how not to do an accurate poll. I’m quite certain that I could come up with some questions tailored to make progressives look downright silly as well….wait a minute…they don’t need any help with that.

                          

Mr. Sainz quotes economist Jeff Thredgold of Vectra Bank Colorado, “In Denver, it’s no boom, no bust, at least as far as home prices.” I’m not sure what economic background Mr. Thredgold has but it certainly didn’t cover the effects of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policies which has brought artificially low interest rates or how certain government policies encourage malinvestment into the real estate market. What Mr. Thredgold and many others fail to see is that the same forces that brought on the housing bubble are still at work. Interest rates for home mortgages are still at all time lows and the FHA is pumping out loans like never before. In addition, the tax credit for first time home buyers is artificially raising the prices of homes. The housing bubble still exists because government hasn’t allowed the market to adjust prices to their natural equilibrium.

Adrian Sainz then proceeds to tell us that, “Rising prices are important to the economic recovery because they make homeowners feel wealthier and lead them to spend more money.” Mr. Sainz has fallen under the evil spell of Keynesian economics and suggests that the best way to a recovery is to go down the same path that led us to the housing bubble in the first place. To suggest that economic recovery is only possible by rising prices and “feeling” wealthy is not only economically ignorant, but downright dangerous to many people’s financial well being. This idea of “feeling wealthy” is what got nearly one-third of homeowners under water (owing more than the market price.)  “Feeling wealthy” is why we have record foreclosure rates. What Coloradans need is not to “feel wealthy” and “spend more money” but actually become wealthy by paying off debt and saving.

The next time you read an article telling you that the boom is over and the good times are back, pause, question, and remember how we got this housing bubble in the first place. Another point to consider is there is nothing wrong with lower prices. You rarely see economists complain when computer prices fall; why should they complain when houses do the same. God forbid that home prices adjust downward enabling more people to afford a home.

Articles like these remind me of Lew Rockwell’s famous rule: Do exactly the opposite of what government says to do (paraphrasing) or in this case, you should do exactly the opposite of what mainstream economists and mainstream media say to do.

(hat tip to Aaron Gomez for the article link)

                          

What profound wisdom might the Dutch taxi drivers have on Obamacare and it’s detractors? Don’t take it personally, but a few abroad think the opponents of Obamacare are a) a “bit loopy” or b) really mean people who don’t like health care just because. It seems that many Dutch taxi drivers are amazed that we are even having such a debate. “How can you not like health care?” many ask. Every time I would try to explain that it’s not that we don’t like “health care” it’s just that we don’t want or need the kind of health care reform the Democrats are peddling selling offering. Most were not convinced of my compassion for those without health coverage. I had to explain that liberty-minded people would love nothing more than everyone to be able to freely purchase the best possible care in the world. I told them that we too had a dream where health care was affordable for all levels of income. Where competition would spur the best advances in medicine, and the lowest prices for everyone. They remained unconvinced and quite certain that I was one of those crazy “right wingers” from the U.S. who hates people. Despite some very shrewd attempts to convince me of the virtues of a government run system and how the free market ruined health care, I stood my ground as a great patriot and defended the free market ways…still, they were Dutch taxi drivers and as everyone knows…

This brings up an unfortunate perception that many Americans also have. The perception is that the Obamacare opponents don’t have an alternate plan to deal with health care affordability. Many feel that opponents of Obamacare can only offer reasons to not pass a plan and have no alternate solutions.

We as free market and limited government proponents, need to better define and explain our solutions for a more affordable health care system. The current alternate proposals are well…weak. Most ideas from the Republican party have been minor adjustments to the current quasi-corporatist system. When was the last time you heard a Republican say they want to get government out of health care entirely (over the course of time)? Oh right, Ron Paul. But other than Dr. Paul, what other congressperson has come out nationally and actually recognized that the current health care system is not operating in a free market system and major cuts and changes should be implemented to return health care back to a true free market? The silence of that answer is deafening.

It’s now time for free market thinkers and politicians who claim to support the free market to put their words to action and offer a true reform package which removes government from the system and bring the “free” back to the health care market. This way, Dutch taxi drivers and the average U.S. citizen won’t think all Americans who oppose Obamacare are cold, heartless, people who don’t like health care but rather are people who want everyone, poor and rich, to enjoy the low prices and quality care a true free market will deliver.

                          

…It’s good to remember that the states created the federal government and not the other way around. As Obama Care becomes closer to reality, we in Colorado have the right to say “No.” This is a chance for freedom loving people from across the state to come together and send the Colorado General assembly a simple message: Defend Colorado against Obama Care in the legislature, or we the people will do it at the ballot…

Rally @ the Capitol to Exempt Colorado from Obama Care!

When: January 19th @ Noon

Where: West steps, Capitol building

Why: To defend state’s rights against Obama Care!

Speakers: Jon Caldara, President of the Independence Institute, Representative Cindy Acree, and more to be announced later!

At the rally, we will be introducing language for a ballot initiative to amend the Colorado Constitution to excempt Colorado from Obama Care. We need to send a very strong and unified message to lawmakers that while we want them to say yes to defending Colorado, we are also ready, willing and able to move forward with the citizen initative process should the legislature fail us.

Join our movement on Facebook here!

                          

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 7, 2010

Contact: Michael Sandoval, tabascoii-at-gmail.com

Ben DeGrow, bendegrow-at-gmail.com, 720-206-5000

Help Take Colorado’s 2010 Political Temperature

New & Improved Online Survey to Become Monthly Feature

- Which way are Colorado conservatives leaning after the shakeup in the governor’s race?

- Is U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton winning over the loyalties of her party’s base?

- Have new candidates in CD 7 and the treasurer’s races made an impact?

…And more!

A sleeker, friendlier 2010 version of the Survey of Colorado’s Political Temperature launches today. Widespread input is crucial to its success.

For the fourth time in six months, two of the state’s most established and respected conservative political bloggers invite the state’s political observers and activists to share their opinions in an online survey of issues, candidates, and trends. The January edition features fewer issue statements, and introduces head-to-head general election predictions between different candidates in the races for various offices.

The survey is available online at:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/98X2C8G

Recipients are invited not only to take the survey, but also to pass it on to anyone they know who might appreciate the opportunity. Postings on email, Facebook and Twitter are encouraged. Still, only one vote per computer or unique IP is allowed to help ensure accuracy.

“There’s been a slew of changes in the political landscape, and we want to know how it’s affected the views of those who have been paying the most attention,” said Michael Sandoval of Slapstick Politics (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com).

The first survey launched in July, followed by editions in September and November. But since the arrival of 2010 brings a faster, more furious pace to electoral developments, a new Survey of Colorado’s Political Temperature will be unveiled the first Thursday of each month.

“Colorado political junkies now will have a monthly ritual they can look forward to,” said Ben DeGrow of the blog Mount Virtus (http://bendegrow.com).

The survey will be open until Friday, January 15, 5 PM local time. The survey is not affiliated with any political candidate, party organization, or any third-party entity.

Sandoval and DeGrow are both members of the Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0 (http://rma2.blogspot.com) and the People’s Press Collective (http://peoplespresscollective.org), informal networks of Right-leaning, pro-liberty new media activists in Colorado. Poll editing graciously provided by Mary Ila MacFarlane.

Results and cross-tab analyses of the three 2009 surveys are available athttp://www.scribd.com/Ben%20DeGrow

                          

The Independence Institute’s Jon Caldara is calling for an admendment to Colorado’s Constitution to opt out of Obamacare mandates

Join the cause and help obtain the nearly 80,000 signatures needed by helping Mr. Caldara place this amendment on the ballot. Yours and your family’s future economic and physical well-being depend upon it.