The Wizard of Beck by David Brooks.
The Wizard of Beck by David Brooks.
Posted by A Watcher on October 03, 2009 at 09:56 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
With the amazing government takeover of the automobile and financial industries, it is obvious that businesses in the dwindling private sector are nervous. Unfortunately, instead of fighting for their independence, many businesses are taking an "if you cannot beat them, join them" approach. Today has two examples of this mentality.
First, just before the July 4th recess, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill by a scant majority (218-212). In today's Denver Post, Mark Hillman scathingly denounces the agricultural lobbyists for capitulating on the cap-and-tax bill and granting cover to reluctant house members.
However, the economic illiteracy of the agriculture lobby is embarrassing. Waxman-Markey's threat to farmers and ranchers isn't limited to the carbon emissions of trucks, tractors and flatulent livestock.
In March, a dozen ag lobbying organizations — including the National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Council, National Corn Growers Association, and National Farmers Union — agreed on nine "Principles for Greenhouse Gas Legislation."
Not one of those principles addressed fuel or energy costs. Yet Waxman-Markey will increase electricity rates by an estimated 90 percent and gas prices by 58 percent, according to the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. That's in addition to $1,241 per year that cap-and-tax will add to the average household's energy bill and another $1,738 per household in lost spending power as energy costs inflate prices of essential goods and services.
Of course, the amended bill (that no one read prior to voting) provided all sorts of goodies to reluctant Congressmen. This article lists some of the horse-trading done to pass this bill, including increasing the amount of "offsets" farmers could potentially sell to polluted industry. Then again, agricultural lobbyists have a history of taxpayer-funded boondoggles (see ethanol).
The second example is Wal-Mart signing onto employer mandates for health care. While it would be better for people to shift to personal insurance plans so coverage is not tied to employment, Wal-Mart chose the top-down, government mandate solution.
What should one do about affected industries getting in bed with their government masters? Ari Armstrong of FreeColorado.com has an answer: the boycott.
Read the rest to see Wal-Mart's clueless public relations response to Ari's complaint. Although I sympathize with Ari's position, there is little likelihood that such an act will affect the company's bottom line.
Instead of fighting bad regulatory ideas, businesses decide to get a seat at the table with the regulators. The underlying assumption is that if one inputs into the legislative process, one will be able to lessen the impact on one's business and perhaps generate artificial advantages for the company.
These companies and lobbyists provide useful cover to the legislators and rulemakers during debate on controversial bills. However, these companies should be aware that if they outlive their usefulness to the government, they will be the first to be thrown under the bus.
by Civil Sense
Posted by Civil Sense on July 14, 2009 at 01:36 PM in Current Affairs, Gummnt, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
My boss sent this cartoon to me this morning. While it is over 50-years old, this cartoon, entitled "Make Mine Freedom", seems even more relevant in these times. Share and enjoy!
by Civil Sense
Posted by Civil Sense on July 10, 2009 at 04:49 PM in Education | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Independence Institute produced this great video about government mandates on coverage (hat tip to Ari Armstrong at FreeColorado.com).
I had higher deductible coverage in college, and so did my wife. Hopefully, government meddling will not ruin this option for those who can least afford it.
by Civil Sense
Posted by Civil Sense on June 25, 2009 at 10:11 AM in Gummnt | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Colorado Republican Business Coalition had two interesting speakers for its monthly lunch meeting today.
First, Director Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado spoke about his organization. He spoke of three cases where he believed to be the Colorado Supreme Court’s most egregious: Bill Ritter’s illegal property tax freeze, the Telluride Land Grab, and the redistricting decision of earlier this decade where the court redrew the lines. His organization supports voting to not retain four Colorado Supreme Court justices in 2010. As Colorado’s judicial retention process is a joke, I support his efforts. However, while the Telluride case was certainly an egregious overreach of eminent domain, it was not unconstitutional (as I wrote here).
Second, Dick Wadhams, State Republican Party Chair, spoke. His demeanor was positive. Obviously, he believes that Democrat overreach will be their downfall over a period of time, especially in regards to the increased taxation and fees imposed on the state in flagrant violation of TABOR. He pointed out that the Republicans gained two seats in the Colorado House, and that it was the Republican Party’s first gain of seats in that chamber since 1994. One interesting tidbit was his belief that Governor Bill Ritter and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper have a strained relationship. Apparently, the Mayor wanted the US Senate seat to which Governor Bill Ritter appointed Michael Bennet.
Dick Wadhams also stated that primaries are good things and make the party stronger, as long as they are not nasty. Therefore, I assume that he supports Tom McDowell’s State Senate bid, at least in principle.
by
Civil Sense
Posted by Civil Sense on June 19, 2009 at 06:37 PM in Fixing The Republican Party, Legal Ethics Reform, Republican Events, State Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I believe in liberty, and that liberty requires limited government. Government, left unchecked, grows in scope and size due to its (mostly) well-intentioned public representatives and employees. Some people prefer to add regulations and restrictions (see the cell phone texting ban); others prefer to merely transfer wealth to political contributors (see Governor Bill Ritter’s “green” economy measures or the Federal Government taking over GM). Of course, all government money is transferred wealth that others created, so minimizing this wealth transfer is crucial to maintain individual liberty and property rights.
TABOR, the taxpayer’s bill of rights, kept Colorado’s government from growing out of control in the good times, so the government cuts are not so painful during the lean times. The budget “hole” for this year is only $1 billion. That looks pretty good compared to California’s $50 billion deficit.
However, for some (including Governor Bill Ritter), enough is never enough. The Governor declared a hiring freeze for the state and then proceeded to add over 2,000 new employees to the government payroll. Recently, outgoing Senate President Peter Groff (amongst others) gave bonuses to his staff while state employees are asked to take some furlough days to save money. Ben DeGrow, writing at Mount Virtus, writes of the “Colorado Democrats’ Taxpayer-Funded Arrogance” with regard to a partisan retreat recently held on the taxpayer’s nickel. How are these programs funded? Funding comes from tax increases, of course.
While TABOR does not allow for
increases in tax collection without a vote of the people, politicians invented
rather sneaky ways to circumvent TABOR.
There was the new tax fee on car registrations. The Colorado Supreme Court declared Governor
Bill Ritter’s illegal property tax freeze as legal. Of course, the court also will get a brand
new state-constructed building (apparently its 30-year-old building in Denver
is too old). This ruling led to all
sorts of new “allocation strategies,” a code word for raising taxes without a
vote. Hence, everyone’s cigarette taxes
increased fifteen cents a pack.
Republican Don Marostica crossed party lines to co-sponsor Senate Bill
228, which removed the six percent annual governmental growth limit. While the six percent limit may seem low, it
merely meant that the government would take only twelve years to double in
size. With that obstacle removed, the
government is nearly unlimited in its growth potential.
What could the Republicans do to stop this madness? They could do little this year. Kent Lambert’s statement in January that we need to “thin the ranks” of weak Republicans is wrong on multiple levels. Yes, the ranks of the Republicans are thinner, and the Democrats control every branch of government. What does a party gain when its membership is ideologically “pure”, yet it is unable to influence public policy?
When asked at a luncheon about what the party should do to Don Marostica due to his sponsorship of Senate Bill 228, State Senator Shawn Mitchell responded, “I think public excommunications do more harm than good.” Luckily, Kent Lambert did not “thin the ranks”, and Shawn Mitchell’s side won out. While the Democrats plot to further neuter TABOR, Marostica wants to revisit the true problems in the state: the automatic funding increase in spending due to Amendment 23 and the Gallagher Amendment.
Slowing the growth of government is hard work, and it will require (at a minimum) divided government. Big-tent Republicanism is the only way to achieve a majority in either one of the legislative chambers. Therefore, the best way for me to support Tom “A Watcher” McDowell’s campaign for State Senate is to keep this blog alive to promote our shared values in a big-tent Republican Party focused on limited government and fiscal responsibility.
by
Civil Sense
Posted by Civil Sense on June 18, 2009 at 11:03 AM in Democrats, Fixing The Republican Party, Government Waste, Green Politics, Ritter, Taxes | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I have come to the realization that I can't both be the kind of candidate that I want to be and also write a quality blog.
Posted by A Watcher on June 16, 2009 at 08:40 PM in Life | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
When in human history has society respected or admired someone who set out to lose at whatever endeavor he got involved in?
Posted by A Watcher on June 16, 2009 at 09:50 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
1. A van with a "respect life" license plate and an Obama sticker.
2. More vintage cars and trucks in garages being rebuilt than I can count.
Posted by A Watcher on June 15, 2009 at 07:56 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I am almost certain that few in our local motorcycle gang like this.
I know a bit more about one officer on this list than I can say. It was no surprise to find his name here. His transgression is also familiar.
If there is a lesson to be learned it is that when the blue line covers up conduct it shouldn't, the conduct is repeated.
Posted by A Watcher on June 14, 2009 at 08:13 AM in Colorado Springs Police | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Denver Post has an interesting article on Jim Daly, successor to James Dobson at Focus on the Family.
Posted by A Watcher on June 13, 2009 at 09:26 AM in Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I picked up four volunteers yesterday. Three were fiscal conservatives and one a social conservative. None were registered Republican.
Posted by A Watcher on June 13, 2009 at 08:37 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Rockies' winning streak comes just after the firing of Clint Hurdle. Doubtless the Broncos and Avalanche hope for the same results.
A Hockey team that is perpetually on the wrong end of a power play can play exciting hockey for a few minutes, but eventually they will lose. Often they will lose badly.
A Football team with a center who repeatedly tries to trip the quarterback by stepping on his feet is going to lose more often than it wins. Usually it will lose badly.
A Baseball team that tried to play with two outfielders would have some pretty big alleys and a lot of scoring, but little success.
Posted by A Watcher on June 12, 2009 at 08:57 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Earlier this week, I was told that I was running a very unorthodox campaign. If I win, it will be because of a grass roots effort, not the amount of advertising I can buy.
I am sure that when the campaign finance reports come out, pundits will look at the numbers and laugh.
Posted by A Watcher on June 11, 2009 at 08:04 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The people I meet as I walk who are least interested in having a Republican majority in the legislature or Congress are the ones who begin spouting back Hannity and Rush.
Posted by A Watcher on June 10, 2009 at 08:24 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Most people don't know what proprietary information is, even some otherwise well educated people. While one doesn't see the term all that often in ordinary commerce, it is not a term unknown to people who have served in higher level government research positions. There, every fifth paper produced by a contractor is marked as that contractor's "proprietary information."
In general, for information to be considered proprietary, companies must treat it as confidential. Courts will not treat information readily available in public sources as proprietary. In addition, proprietary information must give the firm some sort of competitive advantage and should generally be unknown outside of the firm. A company must be able to demonstrate that it has taken every reasonable step to keep the information private if it hopes to obtain court assistance in protecting its rights. "Courts require that trade secret holders take 'reasonable' steps to maintain the secrecy of their trade secrets," Randy Kay wrote in the San Diego Business Journal. "Courts do not require that companies take all measures conceivable to maintain the secrecy, nor do courts require absolute secrecy. Rather, the confidentiality measures must be 'reasonable under the circumstances.'"
Posted by A Watcher on June 09, 2009 at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Those who are curious as to why one of the most liberal members of the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Gisnberg, would issue a temporary stay that slows down the Obama administration's reallocation of private assets, visit my favorite site on Supreme Court issues.
Posted by A Watcher on June 09, 2009 at 07:59 AM in Legal Ethics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Go no farther than the Denver Post editorial by David Peterson. It includes the following sentence:
To paraphrase the old quote about General Motors, "What's good for grocery workers is good for America."
If any companies in any industry in America can afford to do the right thing and boost employee incomes and pensions, grocery chains are at the top of a short list. The wage boosts being sought are neither outrageous nor excessive — especially relative to the growth of their top executives' pay the past decade. The good news is that the companies and the union that represents their workers are back at the bargaining table to try to reach an agreement by June 15.
He is proposing that the Grocery companies follow the exact compliant to unions path that led to the GM bankruptcy. I guess that he thinks that having the government bail out the grocery industry will be "good for America." After all, it is another industry that can't be allowed to fail.
Posted by A Watcher on June 08, 2009 at 07:50 AM in The Denver Post Embarrasses Itself | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
I liked last week's Denver Post editorial, Tone Down the Abortion Debate.
Posted by A Watcher on June 07, 2009 at 08:52 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
It appears that the El Paso County Republican Party is going to take steps to fix this, but one of the reasons that fiscal conservatives are under represented is that no one targets them for voter registration.
Posted by A Watcher on June 06, 2009 at 07:48 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)
In 2005, The Gazette wrote:
A newly formed Republican cell in the Colorado General Assembly wants to purge GOP Statehouse ranks of those who aren’t true to the party’s “core values.”
The conservative-leaning Republican Study Committee of Colorado was recently started by Rep. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, and several other lawmakers. They say they would rather see a small group of pure Republicans operating in the Legislature than a Republican majority populated by lawmakers who support abortion rights, gay marriage or higher taxes.
Schultheis has recruited 13 or 14 other House Republicans — almost half the GOP House caucus — to join the committee.
This is unbelievable! Until now, all I had were puzzle pieces that I put together.
I guess that I didn't understand what the RSCC was, either.
Edited to add. Sometime between the time I published this on June 5th and June 23d, the staff at the Gazette saw fit to remove the linked item from their internet archives. They also removed a related letter to the editor.
Does anyone recall how dismissive the staff of the Gazette was about blogging ethics and blogs in general two years ago?
Edited to add. The Gazette has replaced the article in a way that restores the links. Good for them!
Posted by A Watcher on June 05, 2009 at 08:19 AM in Schultheis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
At the end of one of the Denver Post's long series of editorials promoting more government spending, the Denver Post includes this sentence:
If we experience hyper-inflation because of increased federal spending, Colorado could go bust.
Posted by A Watcher on June 04, 2009 at 07:38 AM in The Denver Post Embarrasses Itself | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Do you think that he Republican Party would be much better off if the politician most associated with and responsible for the Hispanic anti-Republican backlash of the last election were not calling Judge Sotomayor a racist?
I fear that many Hispanics think that Tancredo is, himself, a racist, and look on this latest comment in that light.
If the Republican Party wants to push that line, and it is conceivably a legitimate line to push, they need to find a spokesman who doesn't immediately discredit it with his own reputation.
Posted by A Watcher on June 03, 2009 at 09:45 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
My sympathies are with his family.
I also extend my sympathies to the many well meaning social conservatives who recognize that their cause is always hurt and never helped by these kinds of acts of violence. Ben DeGrow and John Andrews are good examples who spoke out immediately.
Posted by A Watcher on June 02, 2009 at 07:22 AM in Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
One office holder at the Beach Party told me he was reading this blog with interest. He noted that I was free to do some things that others aren't.
Posted by A Watcher on June 01, 2009 at 10:51 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)