There were two revealing stories about President Obama in the same day's paper. In the first, the White House defended its effort to sway Democrat Andrew Romanoff from the U.S. Senate race. His defense was that everybody does it. Doesn't that sound like a response you would get from your teenager? In the second story, Obama objected to the tough immigration law that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed by calling it discriminatory. It does in fact discriminate -- against those who entered our country illegally. Both articles point to the Obama proclivity to call evil good and good evil, as the Bible might put it. (Source: 6/4/10 Denver Post)
What competent President?
Backbone Radio Preview, June 6By Ross Kaminsky
The continuing devastating tragedy of the BP Deepwater Horizon leak is having political consequences nearly as large as its environmental consequences. To be clear, I’m in no way trying to minimize the importance of the damage being done to the Gulf coast. But on our mostly-political show and given that the Backbone Radio crew know a lot more about politics than about environmental science, our focus will be on the former.
The Administration’s response to the disaster has shredded Obama’s reputation for competency. Perhaps more interesting than the outcome is what preceded it: Namely, why did Obama have such a reputation to begin with? And why is his reputation being damaged by events which are essentially out of his control? (Hint: Maybe he didn’t make it sound so out of his control.)
The broad impact on Obama’s political clout is one issue, as is the more specific subject of how the BP disaster is likely to impact American energy policy.
Also weighing on the Administration’s perceived competence (among other things) is the news, finally being covered by the “mainstream” liberal media, that the White House tried to bribe Andrew Romanoff out of the Democratic senate primary race. They seem not to have learned the lessons of Watergate that the cover-up is often worse than the crime. Furthermore, what is implied by their move? Is it that they thought Romanoff would be less of an Obama poodle than Michael “Who?” Bennet despite Romanoff’s running to Bennet’s left? Combined with a similar story from Pennsylvania, the Obama Administration is looking like anything but the “change” they promised.
We’ll discuss these things, as well as the ramifications of the mess made by Israel when they boarded boats in an “aid” flotilla from Turkey to the Gaza Strip. Is this galvanizing world opinion against Israel? And how much of the freedom to verbally attack which politicians and anti-Semites from Saudi Arabia to Brussels to the UN feel has been caused by Barack Obama’s embarrassingly poor treatment of Israel and its leaders?
Please join me by listening to (and calling in to) this week’s Backbone Radio program from 5 PM to 8 PM on 710 AM KNUS in Denver and 1460 AM KZNT in Colorado Springs.
If you’re not in range of the radio waves, you should be able to listen to the show online by clicking HERE. I hope you’ll actively participate in the conversation with me, via phone at 303 696 1971, e-mail at ross(at)710knus.com, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com.
During the seven o’clock hour, we’ll have this month’s installment of John Andrews’ Freedom University series. This month’s topic: Bad teachers beware! Colorado now has a law that ties teacher tenure to student performance -- finally. Parents, employers, citizens, and taxpayers can applaud the tenure reform on one hand, and ask on the other hand why it wasn’t done long ago. Public education is the most expensive item in our state and local budgets, and we’re not getting our money’s worth. Maybe this new approach is a step toward real value in the classroom at long last. John Andrews will explore what it means tonight at 7:00 pm on 710 KNUS in Denver with "Tough Love for Teachers," the latest in our monthly series of one-hour specials called Freedom University. Please be listening.
Again, contact info for the show: Call the studio at 303 696 1971, e-mail me at ross(at)710knus.com, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com.
Billion reasons to distrust Colo. Dems
Four years ago, Colorado voters decided to trust Democrats with complete control of state government - the governor's mansion and large majorities in the legislature. As voters consider their choices for 2010, they might be surprised by how little governing Democrats have trusted voters in those four years.
Since 2007, Gov. Bill Ritter and the Democrat legislature have increased property taxes by more than $160 million a year, raised vehicle license "fees" by $250 million, instituted new hospital patient "fees" that will cost $600 million, and imposed some $180 million in new sales and use taxes.
All told, Ritter and the legislature have managed to increase the cost of taxes and fees by $1.19 billion and, miraculously, not once triggered Colorado's constitutional requirement that taxes can be raised only by a vote of the people.
In 2007, Democrats changed the school finance act to force most school districts to collect more property tax revenues, thereby reducing what the state spends on K-12 education. Previously, even many Democrats acknowledged that such a change must be presented to the voters.
This time, however, Democrats commandeered the political will to pass such a law and constructed a legal argument which, although rejected by a lower court, ultimately prevailed in the Colorado Supreme Court. As a result, Coloradans will pay an extra $160 million for property taxes this year alone - and more than $1 billion over six years.
Thus emboldened, the 2009 legislature smashed another of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights' (TABOR) prohibitions by eliminating the general fund spending limit without a public vote. Although Colorado Revised Statutes specifically referred to this provision as a "limitation" on the general fund, Democrats and their attorneys argued that it was instead an "allocation strategy" and, therefore, not subject to TABOR's prohibition against weakening spending limits without a public vote.
In its ruling on the 2007 property tax hike, the supreme court also signaled lawmakers that other taxes could be raised, under the guise of eliminating tax exemptions, so long as they didn't exceed TABOR revenue limit. To Democrats, suddenly everything that wasn't already taxed was merely "exempted" and a target to be taxed. So in the middle of a recession, they raised taxes on Colorado families and businesses by $180 million over two years.
However, the greatest deception is the onslaught of taxes masquerading as fees. Generally, taxes - which, according to the constitution, can't be raised without voter approval - are collected broadly and can be spent for any purpose. Fees, however, were generally understood to cover the cost of a regulatory function or of administration (e.g., licensing or registration) for which the fee is assessed.
Democrats made no pretense that the largest of their fee increases merely cover administrative expenses. Ritter suggested that the primary criterion necessary for a tax to be considered a fee is a "direct relationship" between the payer of the fee and a government activity funded by the fee.
Under this construction, it seems obvious that a new "fee" on gasoline could be imposed without a public vote so long as revenues are dedicated exclusively to highway construction or repair.
The most egregious fee - a $600 million tax on hospital services - is assessed on "outpatient and inpatient services" and ultimately paid by patients or their insurers, who receive no direct benefit in return. Ironically, Democrats dubbed this legislation, the "Health Care Affordability Act."
Together these two fees when fully implemented are projected to raise a combined $850 million a year. With fees of this magnitude, voters may never again be asked to approve a genuine tax.
Democrat candidate for governor John Hickenlooper recently said, "I think if you put issues before the public, they'll decide if it's a worthwhile investment."
That's not the way Democrats have governed for the past four years. So why should Colorado voters trust Democrats when Democrats clearly don't trust voters?
Treasurer primary: Take it from me
In today’s economy everyone is looking for ways to better manage their money. It is important that we also find someone qualified to manage our state tax money. Someone who knows public finance and will use sound, conservative fiscal policy to manage investments and protect the people’s hard earned tax dollars. In my judgment as a former municipal treasurer, that person is J. J. Ament. After spending 10 years advising state and local governments across the country in matters concerning public finance, J. J. is running for State Treasurer so he can use his experience to benefit the State of Colorado. He would be the first State Treasurer in over 40 years with a professional background in finance.
A strong supporter of TABOR, J. J. will be an advocate for the taxpayers and a voice against reckless spending and government waste. He intends to restore the independence between the Treasurer’s office and the Governor’s office and State Legislature.
Carefully review the candidates’ qualifications. You will find that J. J. Ament is the candidate most qualified to be our next State Treasurer.
Susan Bockenfeld Former Treasurer City of Centennial
Promises, Promises
Hillary Clinton's statements on the Israeli flotilla situation might well have been replaced with, "blah, blah, blah." I'd recommend you watch the YouTube video of her formal statement but it's so full of boring platitudes, all of which could easily have been extracted from the speeches made during her husband's Israeli-Palestinian peace talks way back when. "We will continue to work with both parties", "We are committed to a resolution", "An agreement must support a 2-state solution", etc. What Hillary had to say was far less telling than her facial expressions and body language. Secretary of State Clinton looked more like Mrs. Bill Clinton as her eyes and weary countenance seemed to reveal a deeper personal concern beyond the issue in Israel. One has to wonder what Mrs. Clinton knew about her husband's role in the job offer scandal regarding Sestak. Does she anticipate yet another political quagmire involving her husband and the onslaught of negativity toward her own political ambitions? Her tone and her demeanor seemed to reveal a person with many regrets. Did she get promised something if she would drop out of the presidential race, and if so, did the pedaler deliver on the promise to her full satisfaction? Does the implication of her husband in another shady deal send a blow to any last and final hope of gaining the presidency for herself? Does she resent her present job as her expressions insinuate? No matter how it's sliced, the Sestak situation serves up a distasteful morsel with a bad aftertaste that continues to linger. Too many questions swarm this matter for it to go away. No matter how many WH gala's such as last night's love fest with Paul McCartney, created to help change the subject, the informed voter in this country still demands answers. If there wasn't really a job offer and if this entire mess is so insignificant, why then, did Mr. Sestak even bring it up in the first place? If insignificant, why did his brother get inserted into the conversation? What promise, if any, did Arlen Specter get if he'd switch parties and support Obama initiatives? Afterall, it seems more trendy these days to simply go Independent if you truly want to save your skin in an election. The relationship of Barack Obama and his wife with the Clinton's has never been one of warmth and mutual admiration and respect. Why was Bill Clinton put into the mix and why did he show up last week at the White House for lunch and glad-handing with a soccer team? The 'official' WH statement on the Sestak deal immediately followed Mr. Clinton's chat with the president. Was there another deal cut and another promise made?
What has transpired in terms of promises made and promises kept here in Colorado and our Senate race continues to unfold. Does Romanoff's released statements about it help him or give the nod to Bennet? Has Mr. Romanoff gotten WH direction in terms of his released statement, or has he gone out on his own?
Former Gov. of IL, Rod Blagojevich (a.k.a. "Hot Rod", as then Sen. Obama liked to refer to him back in their good buddy days when Obama stumped for Blago's re-election) says he has lots of information relevant to his defense, but he can't find a single judge in IL that will allow it as evidence. If Blago was unique in that no one else involved used corrupt practices in trying to determine whether Valerie Jarrett, Jesse Jackson, Jr., or Blago himself would fill Obama's Senate seat, why didn't they blow the whistle on him right away? Rahm Emanuel has been subpeoned to testify. Will he do so, or will he be exempt from answering questions in that deal also? What did the president and also Dick Durbin know, and when did they know it?
California's Republican Representative, Darrell Issa, summed things up well yesterday when he stated that these matters must be thoroughly investigated because whether its a Democrat or Republican White House in charge, these tactics are slowly robbing the voting public of any input as to whom runs for office. I agree that our primary system is in jeopardy because politicians with power and high ranking officials in the parties are circumventing the law by making deals and encouraging people to run that fit their agenda. Promises made and deals cut behind closed doors remove the voting public from the process. If this type of corruption isn't exposed and stopped, the average American will no longer be able to identify and support candidates for primary elections. True representatives of the people will never make it to primary ballots. Instead, we will continue to see the public sold a bill of goods on persons that we otherwise would not have selected to run for office.