In case you missed it, Friday was a big news story day for recent GOP primary losers. Multiple stories hit the wire and Yahoo news readers featuring the most pathetic cases of soon to be out-of-work politicians.

We’ve got GOP Senator Bennet’s election predictions in Nevada and overall whining about mischief in Colorado’s Tea Party.

“With the tea party creating the mischief that it is in Colorado, we may not win that seat. My sources in Nevada say with Sharon Angle there’s no way Harry Reid loses in Nevada,” he said about the GOP challenger to Democratic Senate majority leader.

In addition, Bennet also notes:

“That’s my concern, that at the moment there is not a cohesive Republican strategy of this is what we’re going to do. And certainly among the tea party types there’s clearly no strategy of this is what we’re going to do,” he said.

That’s right you mischievous Colorado Tea Partiers, you have no strategy of what to do according to the recent GOP Senate loser. No doubt, he is an expert on political strategy.

Next up is South Carolina’s recent GOP loser Rep. Bob Inglis:

Too many Republican leaders are acquiescing to a poisonous “demagoguery” that threatens the party’s long-term credibility, says a veteran GOP House member who was defeated in South Carolina’s primary last month.

While not naming names, 12-year incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis suggested in interviews with The Associated Press that tea party favorites such as former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts like Glenn Beck are the culprits

Bob’s referring to the those atrocious attacks that bailouts and Obamacare are bad of course.

RHINO suffering will always bring Lindsay Graham to the party with such mind blowing conclusions such as this:

“The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.” Now he said, in a tone of casual lament: “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.” Chortling, he added, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”

Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected today because of people just like statist Lindsay Graham. Especially a 1976 Ronald Reagan.

Why does he still have a membership in the GOP?

Of course Yahoo also had to point out this hit piece blog roundup of  Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, and Tea Parties in general.

I’m sure it’s just coincidence  that all these stories were found at the same time on Yahoo’s news feeder Friday night when I logged in to my front page. They wouldn’t intentionally place those headlines together to run through the weekend? Would they?

The good news is that the tea parties are making a difference otherwise there wouldn’t be all these attacks.

I’ll be going on vacation tonight and I’m sure the “mischievous” Coloradans Tea Party won’t die out while I’m gone. Keep it up Colorado!

                          

The past several years have seen a revival of interest in the Austrian School of economics.  (For some background on the Austrian School, read this essay and this essay.)  I’ve assembled this resource list to help beginners embark on a program of self-education in the Austrian School.  I have marked a few titles with ** to indicate their importance.

                          

Why would 114 people who co-sponsored H.R. 1207 vote against it? Perhaps, the Federal Reserve’s lobbyists threatened members? Did 114 co-sponsors have a condition of bi-polar disorder? Or perhaps, most of these co-sponsors were just riding the ‘transparency’ train and decided to hop off at the last minute with never any intention of supporting the Fed audit. I suspect the latter.

Regardless, these members owe their constituents an explanation on why they oppose a simple audit of the Federal Reserve. Call your Colorado representatives today and ask them why they co-sponsored H.R. 1207 and then proceeded to vote against it. What are they afraid of? All H.R. 1207 does is ask for an audit of the Federal Reserve and report to congress:

Directs the Comptroller General to complete, before the end of 2010, an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and of the federal reserve banks, followed by a detailed report to Congress.

These are the Colorado representatives who changed their support of H.R. 1207:

Jared Polis – CO-2

John Salazar – CO-3

Ed Perlmutter – CO-7

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

A zombie sits down to interview Tom Woods on Tom’s latest book, “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.”

http://www.TomWoods.com
http://www.NullificationFreeChapter.com

TomWoodsTV

                          

10 Things That Terrify Left-Wingers

These are the things that keep American Liberals awake at night.

Government was forced to stop intervening in the economy as it would reveal the centrally planned economic failures of the state.

That if people start organizing freely, and solving problems privately, many government employees would be without a job.

Left-Wingers also hold the conspiracy belief that businesses around the world are conspiring to create wealth and capital just to make everyone else poor; not creating jobs and opportunity. Ironically, that seems to be the job of Congress.

If the sheeple realized that they can spend their money better than a bunch of bureaucrats people might get angry that politicians are stealing and wasting their money.

They also fret over the conspiracy belief that if government doesn’t hand out money, food, jobs, health care and self esteem to people; the streets will be littered with poor, hungry, unemployed, unhealthy, and depressed people.

If affirmative action and minimum wage laws were repealed the poor, willing, and unskilled workers would find productive non-government jobs all on their own.

The conspiracy that individualistic thought behavior will grow and people may try to throw off their shackles of the state.

If gun control bans were eliminated it would reduce the need for the state to protect citizens as they could protect themselves.

If the Internet and media are left to the free market, the people would be able to choose their own media and content provider leaving them unsheltered from all the dangerous ideas in the world…like freedom.

Realizing the game is over and people are waking up to their socialistic ideas.

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

This course is an in-depth exploration of the classic book The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, which has recently shot to #1 on Amazon after being featured on the Glenn Beck Program.

The course features 5 weekly lectures, forums, online readings and media, and much more. Students have an option to take the course without receiving a grade. All materials are provided online and for free, except for the main text, The Road to Serfdom, itself. This text is available for $17 at the online Mises Institute Store.

Click here For more information on this Mises course and information on Thomas DiLorenzo.

                          

Unfortunately, the rate of education inflation has skyrocketed since 1985.

College tuitions soar each year, advancing far in excess of the inflation rate.  The overall inflation rate since 1986 increased 100.14%, which is why we pay nearly double for everything we buy. On the other hand, during the same time, tuition increased a whopping 412.62%.

Essentially, what used to cost 10,000 in education dollars in 1986, now costs 51,000 dollars. What are our members of Congress doing about it? Unfortunately, far too much.

Colorado Senator Michael Bennet recently released an email press release about the work he and other Senators have done to spend more money on college education:

Earlier this year, we made an historic investment in higher education when we passed the Student Aid Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), which:
Expands the PELL grant program, so almost 9,000 additional Colorado students will be eligible to receive a Pell grant this year;
Increases the maximum Pell awards to $5,550 in 2010 and to $5,975 by 2017 and starting in 2013, the maximum award will increase to keep pace with cost-of-living increases;
Dedicates more than $8 million in additional resources to Colorado for College Access Challenge Grants to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared for, and complete secondary education;
Devotes $29,695,750 in resources to Minority Serving Institutions in Colorado;
Lowers the cap on income-based repayment. Students entering college beginning next year will pay no more than 10 percent of their income on their loans when they graduate. Borrowers who responsibly make their monthly payments will see their remaining balance forgiven after 20 years of repayment; and
Ends federal subsidies to private lenders, saving taxpayers more than $60 billion.

Senator Bennet apparently feels that by loaning and giving away more borrowed money from future generations, the current generation can spend more on tuition, have more debt, and even less of a chance to land a job upon graduation.

What Senator Bennet and most other politicians fail to consider are the unseen consequences of education price inflation. What all this “investment in education” has done is actually contrary to their desired results. Student loans and Pell grants has helped to created an education bubble similar to the housing bubble in that artificial demand due to easy money has caused price inflation.

B. T. Donleavy describes this education bubble in his recent article when he writes:

In the advent of the worst financial crisis seen in decades, there is much to be learned. Many economists agree that creating false demand will eventually create a bubble and crush a market much faster than the natural economic cycle. Take for instance the student loan market. Student loans, subsidized and unsubsidized, allow an 18-year-old to finance some or all of the next four years of his or her life, including living expenses. Morally, is it right to allow our children to start their lives immersed in debt?

In 1992, Congress increased the amount of money a student can borrow from the federal loan program with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The act also enabled students defined as “in need” easier access to funding. Now we see student loans dominating the higher-education industry and accounting for 50% of all financial-aid packages.

Richard Vedder, an Ohio University economist, in his paper “Why Does College Cost So Much?” describes demand as one of the factors in the cost explosion of higher education:

Rising Demand: The “natural” economic consequences of a rising demand—higher prices and a larger quantity consumed—are exacerbated by soaring third-party payments. Since 1994, financial-aid payments (mostly federal loans and grants) have risen by an extraordinary 11 percent per year. When someone else pays the bills, we become less sensitive to price.

Richard Vedder is the author of Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much (AEI Press, 2004). A version of this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 23, 2005.

In 2009 Richard Vedder conducted an interview:

In Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs So Much, Ohio University economist Richard Vedder lays out in plain language why, well, college costs so much.

Vedder, also a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sat down at FreedomFest in mid-July with Reason magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch to talk about college costs and more.

But won’t all these college grads get great jobs so they can pay off their investment? Not many will in these economic times. Sending kids to college unfortunately doesn’t create jobs. Factor in that only 57% of college students graduate in 6 years and you also have many people with a lot of debt and no degree. What may we see in the future? Here’s B. T. Donleavy‘s take:

A boost in educational funding for financing may come at a price. If the current trend continues, students will increase the amount financed and they will be paying for the majority of their education in loans. As the January 14 edition of the Economist notes, “only about 400,000 more Americans were employed in December 2009 than in December 1999, while the population grew by nearly 30m.” With an unemployment rate of 10% (real figures are closer to 17%), matters look only more ominous.

Millions of students will graduate with the same popular majors and compete for fewer jobs because a significant amount of manufacturing and industry has left the United States. The supply of students entering the job market will be endless, and businesses will lower the base pay of new employees because of their abundance.

The other scenario is that businesses will not hire them at all because they are fully staffed, thus creating a bottleneck in the job market. Unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare will all suffer from the supply and demand effects of this type of crisis.

So if you’re thinking of spending some time “finding yourself” in college while getting “educated” with majors that have no productive value (financially) or any reasonable chance of gainful employment, while paying for this with borrowed money, think again. Not only will jobs be in short supply, but even the jobs that are available will pay less. Senator Bennet: stop “investing” in education. You’re doing far more harm than good.

Chuck Moe is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

                          

The Federal Trade Commission has hosted a series of workshops on the Future of Journalism:  “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Recently, the  FTC released a “Discussion Draft” on May 24th with the potential policy recommendations to “Reinvent Journalism.”

As expected, more than a few journalists have an opinion about the FTC’s reinvention of Journalism:

Jeff Javis writes:

What disturbs me most in this section is that the FTC frets about “difficult line-drawing being proprietary facts and those in the public domain.” Proprietary facts? Is it starting down a road of trying to enable someone to own a fact the way the patent office lets someone own a method or our DNA? Good God, that’s dangerous.

Andrew Malcom observes:

Would you believe: major changes to the copyright law, including government licensing provisions; government pilot programs to investigate potential new media business models, antitrust changes to allow media companies to unite on imposing online pay walls, establish a journalism division of AmeriCorps with government underwriting the training of young journalists, tax incentives per news employee, increased funding of public broadcasting, a 5% tax on consumer electronics and/or assessments on users of public airwaves.

Mark Tapscott hope journalists wake up:

Release of the Federal Trade Commission’s working paper on “reinventing journalism” makes it clear that there is no more time for diplomacy about this issue: President Obama is determined to federalize the news industry just as he has banking, autos, and health care.

The Washington Times editorial board mentions how expensive this may be:

The report also discusses the possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations. The money for those benefits would come from a suite of new taxes. A 5 percent tax on consumer electronic devices such as iPads, Kindles and laptops that let consumers read the news could be used to encourage people to keep reading the dead-tree version of the news. Other taxes might be levied on the radio and television spectrum, advertising and cell phones.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air mentions:

This looks like an attack on blogs — and an attempt to turn back the clock to 1993 in terms of the voice that news consumers have in news delivery.

As The Capitol Burns put out a youtube video about the proposed recommendations.

With press like this regarding the FTC’s proposed regulations many people have become concerned that the government is in effect – taking over the media.

Henry Waxman isn’t concerned about the government “support” though:

Others have raised red flags about the dangers of government support of the press.

I have an open mind on all the above proposals.

Oh okay…never mind then. Might all these concerns be for nothing? I mean, Henry’s cool with it.

Well the FTC would like you to know that there is indeed, nothing to worry about. All of these articles are just “misinformation.”

Recent press reports have erroneously stated that the FTC is supporting and proposing some of the public comments (for example, taxes on electronic devices, favoring one medium over another).

[T]hrough this document, we seek to prompt discussion of whether to recommend policy changes to support the ongoing reinvention of journalism, and, if so, which specific proposals appear most useful, feasible, platform-neutral, resistant to bias, and unlikely to cause unintended consequences in addressing emerging gaps in news coverage.”

Nothing to see here….move along folks. Just because the title of the official FTC report is “Potential Policy Recommendations To Support The Reinvention of Journalism” doesn’t mean they are potential policy recommendations. Also, despite the footnote disclaimer that says, “It reflects only the tentative analyses and possible policy recommendations assembled by FTC staff in the Office of Policy Planning.” the FTC wants to be clear these are not possible policy recommendations.

These ideas are simply possibilities on “whether” they might consider or recommend  the potential policy changes. The process of government control of the media is very complex and the FTC understandably doesn’t want to leave any stone unturned when it comes to new ideas on controlling the media and internet. Think of this draft as a pre-draft draft or as a pre potential recommendation report that really means nothing at all. All those previous workshops since December of 2009 have simply been mere scribbles on napkins so to speak. Or in the FTC’s words, “a compilation of ideas.” They just subsequently took those scribbles of ideas and produced an official draft policy paper on FTC letterhead, sent emails, press releases,  web updates, and distributed the paper to the world. Just because an official government agency prints some official looking draft of potential policy recommendations doesn’t mean we should pay any attention nor should we be critical. The FTC would appreciate the public and especially journalists to hold all comments and criticism until the policy recommendations ideas are actual law.

If you have further interest in more FTC “ideas” there will be another workshop on June 15th at the National Press Club. But be warned. There will be no possible policy recommendations discussed even if the FTC releases another discussion draft titled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.”

                          

Wendy Kaminer of The Atlantic writes:

In what will likely be one of her last victories as solicitor general, Elena Kagan persuaded the Supreme Court to embrace an expansive vision of federal power that should agitate right-wing advocates of freedom and small central government, but probably won’t, because U.S v Comstock, involved the power to detain people deemed “sexually dangerous” under the popular Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.  (It passed the House and Senate by voice vote in 2006 and was quickly signed into law by President Bush.)

Proponents of limited government should not hold any hope for Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan to understand the concept of enumerated powers…not that I know of anyone who may have had any hope.

So what constitutes “sexually dangerous” and how could people be indefinitely committed?

Virtually any federal prisoner, including ones who have not been imprisoned for sex offenses, may be targeted for civil commitment.  (Since convictions “for violent and non-violent sex offenses constitute less than 2 percent of all federal convictions,” the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys stresses the statute provides for “potential commitment of a significant number of persons with no criminal history of sexual misconduct” and even persons with no prior convictions for any crimes, like material witnesses being detained by the attorney general.)  Once targeted, people are entitled to a hearing before a federal judge (or magistrate), but their alleged future dangerousness need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  And, while the judge must find that the prisoner “has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation,” that finding (as Justice Thomas noted in dissent) “can be established by … clear and convincing evidence that the person committed a sex crime for which he was never charged.”  In other words, the government is empowered to imprison (or “civilly” commit) people indefinitely without bothering to try them in criminal court or in any other proceeding in which they are afforded the rights of a defendant in a criminal case, even if they have never been convicted of any sex crimes.

Not only is the idea of government bureaucrats guessing as to someones sexual intentions and then locking them up past their sentence disturbing. What is really telling is Justice Stephen Breyer’s view of expansive federal power. Sheldon Richman of the Freeman explains:

The chief matter before the Court was whether the law satisfies the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), which authorizes Congress “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said that the commitment statute falls well within the clause as it has been interpreted from the earliest days of the Republic. Quoting terms from the early landmark case McCulloch v. Maryland, Breyer wrote, “[T]he Necessary and Proper Clause makes clear that the Constitution’s grants of specific federal legislative authority are accompanied by broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to the authority’s ‘beneficial exercise.’”

So to sum up, the Court majority feels that the Constitution allows Congress to pass any legislation it wants as long as it is useful to the Federal Government authority as the Necessary and Proper Clause allows sweeping powers for anything. Where the majority went astray is not understanding that the clause only applies to enumerated powers. It takes another trip to imagination land to rationalize that the Federal government has any constitutional role acting as mind police for possible sex crimes. If there is a real danger of possible sexual predators after their sentence has been fulfilled, The States and the People should address these acts of civil commitment (I personally don’t like the idea of civil commitment either but that’s another story.)

The Necessary and Proper Clause has given rise to gross interpretations allowing the government’s power to expand before the ink ever dried.  As Sheldon aptly points out, this clause gave the Anti-Federalists great concern:

The Necessary and Proper Clause was one of several clauses they most objected to when the text of the Constitution was released to the public in 1787. Combined with other vaguely“enumerated powers,” they found the clause threatening to liberty and a portent of big government.

As the Antifederalist “Brutus” wrote, because of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, “This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends.”

The Antifederalists were right and their fears well founded.

Until people’s hearts and minds are changed to view the protection of liberty as the only reasonably arguable function of government, the ‘real’ Constitution will mean whatever the statists say it mean. I think Justin Longo is on to something very insightful in his post.

At least Clarence Thomas is leaning in the proper direction on this issue. In his dissent he says:

“The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it.” He added, “[I]f followed to its logical extreme, [Breyer’s approach] would result in an unwarranted expansion of federal power.

Sadly Clarence, the expansion of power went well beyond unwarranted a long time ago.

                          

southernavenger — May 20, 2010 — When Rand Paul won the Kentucky Republican Primary for US Senate in a landslide, he was immediately attacked by both the Left and Right–and for the same reason.

                          

YouCut – a first-of-its-kind project – is designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. It allows you to vote, both online and on your cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House enact.

Great! The Republicans are getting serious about deficit spending. Let’s take a look at what programs to cut we can vote on.

• Presidential Election Fund – 260 million in savings
• Taxpayer Subsidized Union Activities – 600 million in savings
• HUD Program for Doctoral Dissertations – 1 million in savings
• New Non-Reformed Welfare Program – 2.5 billion in savings
• Eliminate Wealthy Committees From CDBG – 2.6 billion in savings

Well this isn’t quite the level of budget cutting I was expecting. Is this all the items the Republicans could find to cut? Out of a 3.8 trillion dollar budget they could only find 5.96 billion to cut? This amounts to less than .16% of the total federal budget as comic Colin Cohen of ‘As The Capitol Burns’ YouTube channel illustrates:

If Republicans expect to convince fiscal conservatives they are serious about deficit reduction they will have to do a lot better than this pathetic effort.

Until I hear more Republicans speak of significant budget deficit reduction (like Ron Paul) I’m not buying the Republican establishment’s new found fiscal religion.

                          

A draft ordinance presented to city council May 3 would extend this prohibition to outdoor public areas, including, parks, trails, bus stops, alleyways and even sidewalks and parking lots. It would also push the non-smoking perimeter around public entrances from the statewide minimum of 15 feet to 25 feet, close exemptions for outdoor patio areas and designated smoking areas in workplaces, and make it illegal to light up in “cigarette stores, hooka bars and smoking lounges.”

Good for Wheat Ridge. We wouldn’t want any cigarette store patrons getting any second-hand smoke…that would be bad for their health. I’m sure  the hooka bar or smoking lounge owner is excited  about this ordinance since ‘smoking’ in hooka bars or smoking lounges is kinda the point. The ordinance changes would also not allow smoking on sidewalks, streets, alleys, parking lots, open air bus stops, parks, and trails. Basically, smoking wouldn’t be allowed anywhere the public could be exposed to a wisp of second-hand smoke.

Smoker’s needn’t worry about this measure as the council is considering allowing you to smoke in your vehicle…as long as it moving. Oh yes, Wheat Ridge will also allow you to smoke on your own private property…with the doors and windows closed…and the lights turned low.

Smoker’s also shouldn’t be concerned whether the Police Chief has considered your personal liberties to smoke outside. He acknowledges the claim of “freedom of choice.” He just doesn’t think the argument has any merit. In the memo attached to the draft ordinance Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police for city of Wheat Ridge wrote:

The main arguments against local ordinances restricting smoking in public places include the perceptions of lost revenue and a person’s freedom of choice in deciding to smoke.

In 2001, a national study of smoke-free laws concluded there was a positive impact on restaurants. A similar study on bars and hotels found that there were no negative effects resulting from smoke-free laws.

The City of Arvada reported increased revenue from their restaurants and lounges after adopting their ordinance. The TPI Team has offered to assist with our education efforts.

Nary a word addressing “freedom of choice” and just who is the TPI Team that will assist them in their propaganda education efforts? Why it’s the one and only Ciggy and his Tobacco Prevention Initiative (TPT) Team of Jefferson County Public Health.

JeffCo Ciggy - traumatizing kids all over Jefferson County

What this effort has become is social engineering rather than a public health issue. As the proposed ordinace states:

WHEREAS, the Council further finds that reducing youth exposure to tobacco and others smoking tobacco reduces the chances of modeling and normalizing of tobacco use, thus decreasing the chances that youth will begin smoking

It sounds like Wheat Ridge desires to model and normalize it’s own residents through even more nannyish and liberty depriving ordinances.

If you don’t have any reservations or concerns about this ordinance, don’t get upset when the next thing Wheat Ridge decides to ban is something you like. A city council study session is scheduled on Monday the 17th of May.

                          

Student looks over school "paycheck" with over $30 paid just for showing up.

Colorado’s lawmaker’s have discovered the latest, greatest, method for wasting education funds with Colorado Senate Bill 10-210. Not only are they proposing a one million dollar annually renewable program to give low-income students cash for reading, but it’s a bi-partisan education gimmack. Even Colorado’s conservative lawmaker Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry is co-sponsoring the bill with liberal Democratic Senator Chris Romer.

As the Colorado News Agency reports:

Dubbed “Earn to Learn,” the measure would give low-income kids a financial incentive to improve their reading skills by reading more outside the classroom.

The reading incentive program will be available for first- through fifth-graders whose school is within the boundaries of a promise zone—a federally designated area with higher-than-average rates of dropouts and at-risk kids. The reward for reading a book outside of class time will be $2 per book–if the child successfully completes a quiz on the book.

The program is designed to emulate a highly controversial program/study by Roland Fryer Jr., an economist at Harvard University. In this study covered by Time magazine, Roland chose 4 cities to test whether monetary incentives would promote better learning with each city having different monetary incentives.

The results of the experiments were inconclusive:

The results began to trickle into the lab last summer. In New York City, the $1.5 million paid to 8,320 kids for good test scores did not work — at least not in any way that’s easy to measure. In Chicago, under a different model, the kids who earned money for grades attended class more often and got better grades, two major accomplishments. Those students did not, however, do better on their standardized tests at the end of the year.

In Washington, the kids did better on standardized reading tests. Getting paid on a routine basis for a series of small accomplishments, including attendance and behavior, seemed to lead to more learning for those kids. And in Dallas, the experiment produced the most dramatic gains of all. Paying second-graders to read books significantly boosted their reading-comprehension scores on standardized tests at the end of the year — and those kids seemed to continue to do better the next year, even after the rewards stopped.

Senator Chris Romer apparently was impressed with these questionable results as reported by the Colorado News Agency:

Romer said that he has been following the work of Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr., who tested and studied incentive programs for kids to close achievement gaps and found encouraging results pointing to successful outcomes. Romer wants to replicate that success here in Colorado. Romer said he called Fryer, and Fryer offered to help, if needed, to drum up support.

Minority Leader Josh Penry was quoted as saying:

“Market incentives work for big people and recent studies suggest that the same incentives will work for little people,” said Penry.

Ah yes, this is all for the little people. As Amanda Ripley of the Time article points out:

I have not met a child who does not admire this trend.

Now that’s some surprising information. You mean to say that all children like being paid to read? Amazing.

Penry and Romer must believe that rather than teaching children to learn for the sake of knowledge, we should indoctrinate our elementary kids with the idea that performing well in school means the student should be rewarded with cash.

Not surprisingly, some people (other than school children) are not impressed with this program:

The most damning criticism of Fryer came from psychologists like the University of Rochester’s Edward Deci, who has spent his career studying motivation. Deci has found that money — like other tangible rewards — does not work very well to motivate people over the long term, particularly for tasks that involve creativity. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that rewards can have the perverse effect of making people perform worse.

The program will be administered by the read-to-achieve board. According to SB 10-210:

The bill authorizes the read-to-achieve board to award up to $1,000,000 per year to organizations that operate promise neighborhoods or choice neighborhoods, as described in federal law, to fund programs that pay incentives to students to read books.

With all of Colorado’s perpetual budget problems you would think this kind of money could be used for something…let’s say, worthwhile. However, as the last section of SB 10-210 points out:

The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

Does this mean if this bill isn’t passed Colorado’s public peace, health, and safety will be in jeopardy? Are Colorado’s ‘little people’ in danger? Quick, throw some cold, hard cash at ‘em.

Call or email Senator Chris Romer (303-656-9532) and Senator Josh Penry (303-866-3077) and let them know that Coloradans are not interested in starting yet another fantastical, cure-all, educational experiment using our  children as their guinea pigs.

                          

DISCLAIMER: Full of harsh language and violent rhetoric. Emails and voicemails are only edited to remove names and phone numbers.

                          

Now why was Cerebus so interested in Dyncorp International? A company with more public relation problems than Tiger Woods. Dyncorp has human trafficking allegations, shareholder investigations, State Dept. investigations, accounting issues, lawsuits, and prostitution problems and these tend to make a public relation meeting…awkward. With all these distractions getting in the way from their main goal of getting more taxpayer money for unproductive labor and services, the stock price suffered and Afghan police still needed training since they weren’t so successful the first time.

What better way to deal with an image problem then going private. Shareholders can sometimes be such a nuisance and this will relieve the SEC from being overworked with so much effort being spent with Goldman Sachs – who just so happens to have been the financial analyst for the acquisition. It’s that kind of government-corporate cooperation that makes me proud to be an American. In comes Cerebus Capital Management.

Cerebus saw this as an opportunity since war is big business these days and the future is looking bright. With troop surges, defense contractors can make alot of money with support contracts, service contracts, mercenary missions, security services, prostitution, torture, etc. With troop drawdowns, contractors can make a lot of money with support contracts, service contracts, mercenary missions, security services, prostitution, torture, etc. Actually, Dyncorp can make a lot of money no matter what situtation as long as the U.S. keeps bombing, occupying, and destabilizing countries worldwide.

According to Defense Industry Daily:

Private investment firm Cerberus Capital Management, LP has reached a $1.5 billion deal to buy the support and security contractor DynCorp International, including the assumption of debt. The purchase price would be $17.55 per share – a 49% premium to the April 9/10 close of $11.75, and 12.4x the FY 2010 consensus forecast of $1.41 earnings per share

Now if that share price isn’t optimistic about the United States maintaining and expanding the empire I don’t know what is. It may be expensive to U.S. citizens for all these billions in contracts but no price is too high when it comes to world domination peace.

                          

“All the sectors have to contribute, or else we’ll never get there” on climate change, he said. “We have to do something.”

What “something” does is take landlords and nearly 20,00 renters down a road of costs ranging from estimates of 17.7 to 35 million dollars.

The total estimated investment to upgrade all rental properties in the city is $17.7 million. But opponents of the measure, including the Boulder Area Rental Housing Association, say the total cost to property owners could top $35 million.

Why does Boulder want to impose these costs on so many of it’s residents? To help achieve their Climate Action Plan goals which consists of ridding the air of the stuff we exhale and plant’s feed on.

The City of Boulder has adopted a Climate Action Plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 23 percent (to 7 percent below 1990 levels) by 2012.

Why is the Boulder City Council so worried? Because a bureaucratic agency of the Federal government said CO2 is a health and safety hazard and we know the EPA is never wrong.

Federal case law defines greenhouse gas emissions as a public health hazard— a 2007 Supreme Court ruling authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases as a significant threat to human health.

Boulder would implement the Smart-Reg program by adding 42 changes and additions to the existing housing and rental codes covering everything to include the kitchen sink.

A kitchen sink shall be no smaller than 20 inches by 16 inches, with a minimum uniform depth of 6 inches and a maximum uniform depth of 20 inches.

Thank goodness. If there was one thing I was worried about, it was that the Boulder City Council would not cover the size of kitchen sinks. God knows how much greenhouse gases have been needlessly emitted by improperly sized sinks.

Through a extremely confusing PDF listing a variety of charts, property owners (with the gracious assistance of Boulder’s Eco-Police) will be able to determine how many points their rental properties earn. Here are some examples:

• Heat Pump=1 Point
• Programmable Thermostat=1 Point
• Whole House Fan=2 Points
• %100 CFL lighting=7 Points
• Energy Star Washing Machine=2 Points but those don’t count against the 100 points since that is related to water conservation for which each landlord will need 2 points as well. Confused? Good, that’s just the way they like it.
• Innovative Practice=Discretionary Points as this would be entirely up to the City Council’s all-knowing discretion. (rumor has it bonus points are added if the  applicant brings in proof of seeing and/or reading any Al Gore global warming hype media)

Let’s just say property owners have a lot of points to accumulate in order to reach the magic “100 point” level. However, as the Daily Camera reported, Boulder’s own Kara Mertz, the Local Environmental Action Division manager for the city thinks most homes are already %50 of the way there.

She called the proposal “achievable and reasonable” and said most homes would already sit in the 50-point range of the 100-point scale being proposed

I doubt that burdening nearly 20,000 rental dwellings with a slew of new rules, fees, and regulations is “reasonable” but it certainly is “achievable.” With the threat of fines and withholding rental licenses over landlords, anything is possible.

Now you’re probably wondering how is Boulder going to pay for all this enforcement since the Boulder City Council itself estimates these costs to exceed $157,000 for 2010 alone. Never fear as Boulder has significant experience extracting money from it’s residents  for it’s numerous nanny-state programs. Using this experience they are proposing…wait for it…new and increased fees for landords which will total an increase of at least $274 per rental unit. This is in a addition to the $2000 to $3000 dollars in energy efficiency upgrades that each rental unit may need for point upgrades.

Boulder also anticipates reducing energy use through it’s Education and Assistance Programs. The primary focus of these programs will be “… to encourage behavior change.” Apparently, a good portion of Boulder’s greenhouse gases are caused by inappropriate behavior by Boulder renters. Shame on you Boulder renters. It’s time to get with the program.

What else does this mean for the thousands of renters in Boulder in addition to behavior modification? Increases in rent of course. Anyone with half a brain (obligatory Boulder City Council exception) knows that rent will increase substantially to cover these costs but as the city council has said, “all sectors have to contribute.”

The Boulder Planning Board will take up the proposed SmartRegs on Thursday night. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. in the City Council chambers at the Boulder Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway.

If I were one of the 19,600 renters in Boulder, I would make this meeting a priority or you will pay for it…literally.

ColoradoFreedom.net – painfully examining the latest Boulder City Council antics so you don’t have to.

                          

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 iPad has certainly been a major disappointment. And Tiger Woods? Man what a jerk! I’m glad that Rockies player Huston Street is seeing a good orthopedic surgeon in Alabama for a second opinion on his shoulder. In spite of all this invaluable journalism it feels like I’ve missed something important…

…Hmm…What can it be?

Oh yeah! A group of innocent people were blown to bits (including two American journalists) and the Military tried to hide it (which is not uncommon for them to do link courtesy of Chuck Moe). But that’s not real news. Well, unless a republicans in office.

Which brings me to my second point. If you’re a war mongering conservative who believes life begins at conception–and should be protected from the needle of an OB Dr.–how do you reconcile the two obviously incompatible views. I mean, at least liberals are consistent. For example: Obama ran on an antiwar platform, yet has expanded the war. Being pro choice allows him and liberals alike to be selective with whatever high moral standards suit their needs.

It’s hard to defend a pro war, anti-abortion ideology. In fact it’s about as morally consistent as a pimp who actively promotes teen abstinence while tricking out the entire high school junior varsity cheerleading squad. There is NOTHING pro life about this:

Unless of course brown people who wear towels on their heads are somehow less than human (which is the impression I get from war drumming republicans).

To sum it all up. It doesn’t matter whether the liberals have control or the conservatives have control. The outcome is as predictable as Disney Channel child stars becoming slutty crack heads: an increase in the size and health of the state, the continued decimation of basic human rights, court academicians justifying it, and the mainstream media keeping the masses uninformed.

P.S. I understand that not all liberals are supportive of Obama’s compromise on the war issue. I also understand there are a lot of republicans and conservatives who are noninterventionists and despise what the neocons have done to the platform. I’m only talking to the pro war/pro life crowd. So I don’t mean to generalize eveyone.

                          

The Congressman from Colorado District 7 who swore to uphold the Constitution before he took office, violated the rule of law again by supporting the recent health care reform bill (otherwise known as Obamacare).

This statement was released from his office on March 21st 2010:
Today, U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO-07), voted in favor of comprehensive health insurance reform. Below is a statement from Congressman Perlmutter:

“I am proud to cast this historic vote. For too long, people with preexisting conditions, like my daughter Alexis, were denied coverage or discriminated against by being priced out of the insurance market. It is unconstitutional, immoral and today we said enough and put an end to this practice.

Too much is at stake for thousands of people, families and small businesses in the 7th CD, and we took the necessary first steps to making quality, reasonably priced health care accessible to more people for less cost. There is still work to be done, and I am committed to continuing this work. But ‘No’ is not an option. The status quo is not the answer.

At Government in the Grocery and throughout our neighborhoods in my district, I’ve heard from thousands of my constituents who told me we cannot wait any longer.

This legislation guarantees 16,800 residents of the 7th CD who have pre-existing conditions obtain coverage. It reduces the deficit by more than $130 billion. It provides insurance coverage for 95% of Americans, including 94,000 uninsured residents in the 7th CD. And it gives tax credits and other credits to 160,000 families and 17,500 small businesses to help them afford insurance coverage.

For more than four decades we’ve been talking about how to provide affordable access to quality health care to all Americans without discrimination. Today, we finally stopped talking and took action.

I recognize and appreciate the different opinion on these complex issues. But we have to move forward to find effective ways for Americans to live healthy lives so our economy can grow and our nation can prosper again.”

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the power to dictate health care coverage for Americans.

Perlmutter loves to support any bill in which large sums of money and power gets transferred around.  Especially when it increases the size of government, or his campaign lobbyists’ wallets.  Perlmutter is a reckless congressman who refuses to represent the individuals of CO 7.  He does however love his support from large unions, and anyone other group that likes to step on individual rights and redistribute wealth.

My question to Perlmutter is; if you refuse to uphold the rule of law, and you continue to steal from hard working Americans for your own personal statist goals, then doesn’t that mean you are committing fraud?