In last Sunday’s Denver Post, State Senator Rollie Heath made an incredibly disingenuous argument for eliminating the 6% constitutional limit on yearly increases in state spending by a simple vote of the legislature (Don’t make budget cuts permanent, 2-22-09). While Heath admits that “TABOR requires voter approval for a ‘weakening’ of ‘limits on district revenue, spending, and debt,’” he goes on to declare that the offending Arveschoug-Bird amendment does not limit government spending but “merely allocates it.” Talk about audacity! This Boulder liberal must either be a fool, or take everyone in Colorado for one. The very reason Heath and his fellow Democrats want to do away with this constitutional provision by legislative action (instead of a vote of the people), is precisely because it would weaken TABOR’s spending limits!

Heath goes on to falsely contend that A-G’s provision that directs all funds above the 6% cap to capital construction jobs is unnecessary, because such “worthy” projects are “automatically funded in good years.” However, for the last two “good” years under our Democrat-dominated legislature, these things were obviously underfunded since most of our roads and bridges are apparently falling apart. Someone may also want to inform Heath that this is not a good year, which one would think would be an argument in favor of maintaining the requirement not doing away with it. Nonetheless, doing his best fear-mongering, gotta-do-it-right-now impression of Barack Obama, Heath also threatens that if A-G is not dispensed with immediately, “Colorado will never recover from the current recession.”

What Heath neglected to report is that the 6% limit in A-G can be overridden by a 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature—something that should be easily achievable if its effects are so dire. In addition, as Mark Hillman wrote in the Rocky Mt. News this week, there is little chance that Colorado’s economy is going to expand by anything close to 6% for the foreseeable future. So what’s the big rush? If Heath wants to remove the spending cap permanently (the real goal of the Democrats and one misguided Republican) the right way, he needs to present it to the people of Colorado for a vote. Otherwise it’s just another liberal power grab (and end-run around the constitution) designed to allow Democrats to engage in their favorite activity: unlimited spending. While making threats and deceitful arguments may have worked with Obama’s stimulus bill, hopefully they won’t in our state, even if Heath truly believes that he “can fool all of the people some of the time.” 

By Colorado State Senator Ted Harvey

The current and steep recession across the country has not spared Colorado or its budget.  With only five months remaining in this fiscal year, the legislature is racing to cut $600 million from our current year’s budget.   This is a lot of money, but it pales in comparison to the massive $42 BILLION hole that the state of California is trying to manage.

The Golden State legislature has been under lock down as the Democrat majority tried to twist arms and find one more vote to increase government revenue by $14.2 billion by taxing  income, sales, gasoline and cars.  Six years ago Mr. Schwarzenegger defeated Governor Gray Davis by calling him "Car-taxula."  Ironically, Governor Arnold’s current budget is asking to double the same tax.

The difference between Colorado’s budget troubles and California’s budget meltdown is not random – Colorado is doing comparatively well because its people have pursued fiscal restraint, while Californians have approved reckless spending packages year after year.

US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said that state legislatures are laboratories of democracy in America.  The impact of the current economic crises on national and state budgets could not provide a more vivid opportunity to prove this theory. 

While Colorado has chosen fiscally prudent constitutional constraints on growth and spending—through the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) and a 6% growth cap on state spending—California has chosen the path of a socialist experiment in their state.  Like the failed communist experiments of the 20^th Century, the irresponsible Californian experiment is soon to find its appropriate place atop what President Ronald Reagan called “the ash heap of history."

The results of California’s experiment are in: the Wall Street Journal explained that California’s “total state expenditures have grown to $145 billion in 2008 from $104 billion in 2003.” As a result, California’s credit rating has fallen beneath Louisiana’s as the worst in the nation, and the state can now boast the nation’s fourth-highest unemployment rate of 9.3%, and the second-highest foreclosure rate.

Businesses in California have been heavily taxed to fund the $145 billion of entitlement programs, and have been heavily regulated to live up to special interest “green” and “pro-union” policies.

While California businesses are fleeing the burdensome tax and regulatory schemes of the Golden State, Colorado is aggressively marketing to these companies.  Just last month, Douglas County successfully secured 500 new jobs resulting from the relocation of a division of Charles Schwab from California to Colorado—partially because of our friendlier business climate.

The lesson Colorado’s legislators must learn from this recession is clear: fiscal responsibility works. Even though the legislature collectively fell short of creating a rainy day fund, TABOR and the Arveschoug-Bird 6% spending cap forced Colorado legislators to keep spending low. Had the government enjoyed free rein in ramping up spending – which is a great temptation to many lawmakers tasked with spending other people’s money – Colorado’s budget crisis would be as serious as California’s.

The spending limits of TABOR and the Arveschoug-Bird cap implement a culture of fiscal responsibility where there would otherwise be a temptation to spend every dollar that can be stripped from the taxpayers. Colorado must keep these spending limits in place to avoid falling into the trap of state socialism.

In addition to massive quantities of drugs, Mexican drug cartels are shipping plenty of violence north.

Former Colorado State Senate president John Andrews warns in a recent commentary in The Denver Post that Colorado's constitutional Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, TABOR, may soon be under assault once again in the State Capitol. He also noted that TABOR is the envy of states all around the country.

Highlighted inset: With the occasional rare exception, politicians – once elected to office – cannot resist the pressure to spend whatever money is available.

Three hundred million dollars – $300,000,000 – is a lot of scratch.

One can easily imagine the glee with which a notorious spender like Gov. Bill Richardson heard the news that New Mexico’s oil and gas industry has presented this handsome, unexpected bonus on top of its usual huge contribution to the state’s coffers.

Gleeful, too, one can be sure, were public employee union bosses; city, county, school district and university officials and their lobbyists; and many hundreds of advocates for all manner of "unmet needs" whose hands are forever in taxpayers’ pockets.

If New Mexico had Colorado’s constitution, Richardson & Co. wouldn’t be spending this $300 million windfall from high international fuel prices. More on that below.

By noon on Jan. 18, when the Legislature convened to hear Richardson’s glowing report on how well our state (read he, himself) is doing, that $300 million had probably been spent three or four times!

Though New Mexico taxation was already comparatively high when he took office, Richardson has raised taxes some more.

He also got voters to help him raid a state endowment, the Land Grant Permanent Fund, to put at his disposal about $80 million more every year. Money from tobacco litigation has also been released by Richardson and the Legislature from "permanent fund" status, giving him another $40 million or so per year to sprinkle around.

Future governors will have less to spend, because these were robberies from Peter to pay Paul.

With the occasional rare exception, politicians – once elected to office – cannot resist the pressure to spend whatever money is available.

Gov. Gary Johnson was one of the exceptions, but some are still tending wounds inflicted by Republicans in the Legislature who didn’t like being cajoled to sustain his 750 vetoes. Substantially all those were directed at controlling government’s cost and reach into citizens’ liberties – solid Republican values that too many Republicans forget when the big bucks are there to put smiles on faces of the professional beggars mentioned above.

In 1992, Colorado voters recognized the sad truth about politicians’ love of spending and did something to help. They adopted TABOR, The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights – article X, section 20 of the state constitution – which limits public spending growth to a combination of inflation and population growth.

Politicians can propose larger increases, but those must be approved by voters in subsequent elections.

Coloradans now enjoy an economy with one of the nation’s fastest growth rates. Pre-TABOR, government jobs in Colorado were expanding faster than in the private sector. Post-TABOR, business job growth has been nearly double the rate in government.

Meanwhile, big-government advocates all over Colorado are wailing about pinches here and there, all blamed on TABOR – and music to the ears of anyone fed up with failed expectations that some government program or other is the answer to every perceived need.

The Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico’s free market think tank, has calculated that the state’s general fund expenditures are more than 25 percent larger today than if growth had been limited like Colorado’s during the same period. That 25-percent-plus difference is about $1 billion, and it’s getting wider with each passing year – even without the $300 million fuel price windfall that will be blown in the next few months.

New Mexico needs a TABOR-like constitutional spending limit, but that is a long row to hoe.

For one thing, New Mexicans don’t enjoy Coloradans’ privilege of citizen-initiated amendments like TABOR. Our constitutional amendments must originate in the Legislature.

Further, Colorado is relatively uninfluenced by the culture of patronage running deep in New Mexico and doing so much to corrupt government.

Nonetheless, the time to begin is now. Can a cadre of legislators be found that is committed to accomplishing what some might believe impossible?

 

Item: A medical marijuana dispensary in South Lake Tahoe, California was raided recently by agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and local and other federal authorities. Another day, another reminder that federalism is all but dead.

I’ll leave the facts behind this particular raid for courts to decide, but I’m skeptical. I am reminded of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s stellar dissent from a six-to-three decision in June 2005 in another California medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich. In that case, marijuana was grown for their own use by seriously ill persons. It was never bought nor sold, and it was never carried across a state line. Nevertheless, it was found to be banned by federal law under a bizarre construction of the “commerce” and “necessary and proper” clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Further, it made no difference that the citizens of California had decided in a referendum to permit medical use of marijuana.

Concluding his 18-page dissent, J. Thomas said, “The [Court] majority prevents States like California from devising drug policies that they have concluded provide much-needed respite to the seriously ill. The majority’s rush to embrace federal power ‘is especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Union.’ Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other States to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens.” (Citation omitted.)

Hastening the end of federalism is just one pernicious result – collateral damage – from America’s so-called War on Drugs. Just like Prohibition (of alcohol) 90 years ago, criminal profits have led to widespread corruption in our own country. (How, for instance, does one think a typical imprisoned criminal can get any drug he wants just about any time he wants it? Answer: bought guards.)

Drug-using Americans’ money in the hands of narco-traffickers has created damage immediately south of our southern border that goes far beyond tragic; it’s terrifying. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich put it this way: "We have to rethink our entire strategy for working with Mexico. The war that’s under way in Mexico is an enormous national security threat to the U.S. If we allow the drug dealers to win we will have a nightmare on our southern border and no amount of fence and no amount of national security would compensate for the collapse of Mexico."

Many illicit drugs are bad stuff. But suppression of liberty is bad stuff, too. Alcohol Prohibition was doomed from the get-go because too many Americans wouldn’t lay off booze. It has been clear for a long time that, to the extent it relies on prohibition, the Drug War is a failure for the same reason. It’s a failure writ many tens of times larger than alcohol Prohibition.

I once lost the chairmanship of the Republican Party of New Mexico because some in that party deemed impermissible having the open and serious debate about drug policy that the Republican governor and I advocated. Decriminalization or legalization was simply off the table, as if (alcohol) Prohibition and its repeal had never happened. Some minor law changes designed for the governor by a task force that included a prominent federal judge and several others from law enforcement sent the state’s senior U.S. senator and some other party big-wigs into a conniption.

The ensuing hypocrisy was breathtaking. For example, the state’s two Republican U.S. representatives issued a statement saying, “While we agree that Mr. Dendahl has done good work for our party and has been a warrior for many of the party’s principles, he simply has broken faith with the party in this matter …” But when U.S. Sen. James Jeffords (R-Vt.) switched parties less than three months later and handed control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats, one of those same two GOP congressmen unctuously opined, “He made a decision of conscience and you have to respect that. The party is big enough to reflect different views.”

Well, maybe not. But it had better learn to be.

What would you think of someone who wrote a publication called, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life? If you think he might be an upper class, white guy you’d be right. In fact, this is the subtitle of Charles Darwin’s famous book, On the Origen of Species by Means of Natural Selection, better known simply as Origen of Species. Interestingly, Darwin doesn’t specifically address human evolution in this volume, but does so in a subsequent tome called The Descent of Man, where he states that aboriginal and negro races were the earliest to arise in the path of human development because they were closest to apes and monkeys!

Not surprisingly, the general adoption of Darwinian evolutionary principles by the scientific community following the latter 19^th and early 20^th centuries led to the eugenics movement whose goal was to perfect the human race by selective breeding and eliminating inferior groups of people (guess who those might be). This evolution-based philosophy contributed significantly to Hitler’s idea of a master race and to the gassing of millions of “undesirables,” like Jews and gypsies in Nazi Germany. It also led to blacks in the U.S. being used as human guinea pigs for medical experimentation, and as a justification for abortion by groups like Planned Parenthood, which has resulted in the deaths of nearly 50 million unborn children. Somehow, much like the liberal media’s mass embrace and virtual deification of Barack Obama, in their love of Darwin our scientific elites (most of whom are atheists), not to mention the popular media, have neglected sharing these truths about him and the deadly worldview he spawned.

But, why bother with trivial facts? Especially when February 12, 2009 marks the 200^th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. Indeed, having reached demigod status among his worshippers in the science community, for anyone to point to anything negative about Darwin is considered highly UNpolitically correct. No, Darwin is to be celebrated, feted, praised and honored, and his theory is not to be questioned. You see, according to groups like the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education, it’s really not a theory at all; it is a FACT—and beyond that has become THE UNIFYING PRINCIPLE OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE! Didn’t you know? 

Apparently you don’t. In fact, recent polls have shown that Americans remain stubbornly unconvinced about evolution. As reported by a USA Today/Gallup poll taken in 2007, “66%—two thirds—of Americans believe that ‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.’” And a 2006 Zogby International survey showed that close to 70% of Americans believe public school teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution, while only 21% thought that only Darwin’s theory of evolution should be taught. Miffed by these results, evolutionists have devised a strategy to overcome religious objections to the FACT. Called the Clergy Letter Project, it describes itself as “an endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible.” Signed on to by over 11,000 ministers (mostly from mainline denominations), this Sunday hundreds of churches they represent around the country and overseas will be celebrating “Darwin Day” or “Evolution Weekend.” 

However, leading evolutionist and author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, reveals the evolutionary community’s true attitude toward those (mostly Americans) who believe in a divine Creator. At the Atheist Alliance International Conference in 2005, Dawkins said, “You won’t find any opposition to the idea of evolution among the sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.”

Dawkins, who dismissively equates religious faith with fairy tales or more ominously with a virulent disease, honestly acknowledges that there is no room for combining faith and science if one understands what evolutionary theory really means. In Ben Stein’s recent movie, Expelled, the renowned scientist frankly admits that many evolutionists oppose his forthright acknowledgment that evolution inexorably leads to godlessness. To Dawkins’ chagrin, Stein’s film also revealed his belief that life on earth was probably planted by a superior race of aliens from outer space—who themselves had arisen through evolution. It would appear that, even for the likes of Dawkins, accounting for the complexity of everything from the simplest cell to the human brain requires an intelligent agent of some kind. If not God, then aliens! This from a man who belongs to a self-styled group called “The Brights,” and who is part of a movement of “New Atheists” that aggressively seeks to stamp out belief in a Creator.

As Expelled also revealed, censorship and discrimination are routinely employed in our educational system against those who dare to question the credibility of evolution. As the film shows, scientists with PhD’s consistently fired from our colleges and universities if they write or say anything that merely raises questions about the “theory,” or suggest that it is anything other than an unassailable FACT. And, despite Americans’ overwhelming support for a more balanced approach to the subject of origins, evolution is taught almost exclusively in our public schools. The National Center for Science Education, a group that promotes “Darwin Day,” uses scare tactics against any school board that considers such an even-handed approach. The NCSE even opposes teaching “the strengths and weaknesses” of Darwinism. Following a recent case in Texas, NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott was quoted as stating, “There are no weaknesses of evolution.” So much for academic freedom and critical thinking.

While Darwin couldn’t possibly have foreseen all the negative consequences of his theory, he certainly understood that the system for which he was advocating would provide a rationale for “creation” to those utterly hostile to faith in God. His theory has since led to the deaths of millions upon millions of men, women and unborn children, and has been used to justify some of the most horrific and inhumane treatment ever conducted by man against man, as well as to promote discrimination against “lesser” races—and those who dare to question its validity as absolute truth. In view of these realities, perhaps instead of “Darwin Day,” the celebration of Darwin’s birth should be called “Discrimination Day.” 

Well, here goes. I'll use my maiden voyage experience in blogging (I have no idea what I'm doing.  Is there some blogging book for dummies?) to help make known something I just learned about 2 days ago.  Perhaps not relevant to this venue, but I felt it an urgent situation.  It's the CPSIA bill passed by Congress that's, as I write, putting people out of business.  You can learn more on the NARTS  (National Association of Resale and Thrift Shops) site.  Congress, in their "infinite wisdom" has, once again, thrown the baby out with the bath water.  I don't know whose brain trust it was, but it will apparently make illegal, after 2-9-09, the resale of children's items that have not been tested (or perhaps retested, I haven't read the bill yet) for lead content.  As I understand, it would even affect yard sales, etc.  It appears Congress would rather defer to China and allow this harmful stuff to enter our country, making us deal with it and penalizing us for this stuff being here, rather than putting the burden on the Chinese and prohibiting this stuff from entering the country to begin with.  I guess Most Favored Nation Trade Status and certain politicians in your pocket who profit from it all has its perks!  There's a very nice lady who owns a children's consignment store in California who is rapidly liquidating her stock to be out of business by the 9th to be in compliance.  This is a needless tragedy, (yet one more blow to a gasping economy in the shadow of socialism)  I'm sure affecting businesses all over the U.S.  It should not have been.   I have contacted my senators, I hope more people do as well and maybe they will act before it's too late.

Last week Rush Limbaugh set off a firestorm, and came under attack by congressional liberals for stating that he wants Barack Obama to fail. According to many, especially in the media, that statement was akin to heresy. Of course, if you believe, as virtually all liberals seem to, that Obama is an utter saint if not the actual Savior of the world, it would be sacrilegious to suggest that he might not be perfect, much less be subject to failure. It seems that absolute allegiance to Obama and anything he wants to do is now required in America—this from the same folks that had no problem viciously attacking President Bush or who routinely deny the existence of absolutes in any other context, especially when it comes to morality.

Of course, not only do Limbaugh’s comments fail to fall in line with that liberal orthodoxy, but they stand in stark contrast to Republican leaders who have been falling all over themselves to declare how much they want President Obama to succeed. Pardon me, but why should any Republican, much less those who claim to be conservative, want Obama—the most liberal person ever to hold the office—to succeed? If Hillary had won the election instead of Obama, would Republicans be so anxious to express such unwavering support for her presidency? John Kerry? Al Gore? Of course not. The only real difference is Obama’s color, race and ethnicity. So, in this supposedly “post-racial” era into which we’ve been ushered by “the Savior,” everyone is required to hope, pray and work for Obama to be successful simply because he is black? I know that no one is supposed to dare suggest such a thing (how politically incorrect can one be?), but isn’t this what’s really at the heart of the matter?

Let’s face it folks, our “post-racial” liberal friends are seeking to use Obama’s race to silence all criticism of him and his policies. It doesn’t matter that he is the least qualified and most liberal person ever to occupy the Oval Office, we all need to root for him because he’s African-American! Apart from the frighteningly dangerous (Stalinist?) nature of the media’s demand that there be no dissent when it comes to Obama, it would appear that the presidency has now become an affirmative action program. The fact is that if Obama succeeds in passing his agenda, our country will not be stronger but weaker. We’ll be deeper in debt, have higher taxes, be more dependent on foreign energy, possess a diminished military, have increased abortions and taxpayer support for other immoral choices and less freedom of speech, conscience and religion (just a short list).

For the record, I also want Obama to fail—not because he’s black, but in spite of his being black. I oppose him because I think his liberal inclinations and policies will absolutely wreck this country. And that, my friends, is being truly post-racial.

Few are in a position to speak more poignantly than Judea Pearl about the support received by radical Islam in American universities and news media. Pearl’s son, Daniel, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, was beheaded in Pakistan seven years ago this month. One of our charming guests at Gitmo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, claims to have done the deed and enjoys hero status.

How much more political correctness has to be endured before these imbecilic academics, commentators and, yes, even diplomats, are figuratively thrown overboard in favor of telling it like it is – with good old-fashioned First Amendment speech?

Read here Judea Pearl’s trenchant remarks, published February 3 in the Journal.

Warm At The Bottom

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 23, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: If global warming is a crisis, then why does it rank dead last in a long list of issues that Americans believe are top priorities for the country?

 

Read the whole IBD editorial here

---

---

 

 

Part 1: Gore’s (Really) Inconvenient Timing – ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008  

Part 2: Gore’s (Really) Inconvenient Timing – ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008

 

---

Rasmussen Reports has released results of a new poll on global warming. The American public is coming around to believing that long-term planetary trends, not activities of mankind, are the cause of global warming.

In less than a year, the percentage blaming mankind has dropped from 47 to 41 percent while belief that it is planetary trends jumped from 34 to 44 percent.

Former Vice President Al Gore famously claims the debate is over and mankind is the culprit. It looks to us as if the debate is just warming up!

  Read the Rasmussen report here.