Democrats

Stimulate with tax cuts, not giveaways

The United States of America is deep in recession. Our new President, Barack Obama, intends to spend $800 billion or more on a “fiscal stimulus package” intended to jumpstart the economy. As part of this package, Obama talks of injecting $300 billion in government funds into the economy, direct to consumers in the form of tax rebates, in a belief that by sending taxpayers a check, it will increase consumer spending and stimulate aggregate demand, thus spurring a recovery. Yet a review of the effectiveness of such policies reveals the folly of tax rebates as fiscal stimulus. According to economist Martin Feldstein, CEO of the National Bureau of Economic Research, when tax rebates went out as economic stimulus last spring, only around 16% of the checks were actually spent, with nearly five times that amount going into savings. Most of the rebates were used to pay off loans, not to buy new products and services, and the stimulus package utterly failed to preclude the recession.

Furthermore, by the time the checks would be in the mail, the economy will likely be improving, as happened in the 1970s. If implemented now, the benefits of a stimulus package based in tax rebates—a small burst in increased consumer demand—are minimal at best and will not outweigh the substantial costs.

While the value of the dollar has lately gained in strength, it still has the potential to continue its recent decline. As its value goes down, creditor concerns over their holdings of U.S. bonds will rise, resulting in the likely increase in interest as creditors rethink their holdings. By spending $300 billion on a stimulus package that will likely have minimal effect, the U.S. government is essentially assuming even more debt, which has already increased 86% nominally in the last eight years, at greater national risk.

We must therefore institute wide-ranging, permanent, pro-growth tax cuts, starting with making the Bush tax cuts permanent and expanding them. Beginning in 2010, the Bush rate reductions on income, capital gains and the estate tax will start to dissipate. With the dire need for capital injections into the market, allowing the 15% capital gains rate to return to the 20% rate would discourage investment in the economy. Instead, the capital gains tax should be cut in half to 7.5% so as to incentivize greater investment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed that the 25% income tax rate be reduced to 15%, thereby “establish[ing] a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of workers.” Such targeted tax cuts would give the economy the boost it needs to create jobs and increase consumer demand and investment. We must then cut back the corporate tax rate from 35%, the second-highest in the world, to 25%, the average in Europe. This would expand incentives for businesses to create jobs in America and lessen the enticement to outsource.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxpayers will reduce spending before the expirations take effect, stunting the benefits of the rebates further. Alternatively, the knowledge that tax rates will be cut and individuals will be permitted to keep more of their income will give a sense of comfort to the beneficiaries. By cutting marginal tax rates now, the short-term effect will be a rise in consumer confidence, resulting in a boost in consumer spending.

The long-term relief that came in the form of broad-based tax cuts in 2003 resulted in the largest single-quarter GDP growth in 20 years, 7.2%, and the creation of 8 million new jobs through 2007. The aforementioned cuts would especially aid America economically in the long term, opening the door to greater and more sustained long-run economic growth as we come out of the recession.

History shows that the net benefit of tax rebate stimulus packages is minimal, and he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. A fiscal stimulus of tax rate cuts, not tax rebates, would stimulate an economic recovery by putting more money in people’s pockets long-term and increasing demand in the short-term.

Jimmy Sengenberger is a political science student at Regis University in Denver, a 2008 honors graduate of nearby Grandview High School, a national organizer for the Liberty Day movement, online radio host, and a columnist for the Villager suburban weekly. He is also College Liaison for BackboneAmerica.net, working through the Backbone Americans group on Facebook.</em

Dems feeling cognitive dissonance

Transitions are a great entertainment form, the more so if we get a new party as well as a new President. DC real estate folks always vote against the “in” party because a full blown turnover is always good for business. Casually strolling around Georgetown or similar neighborhoods one notes the frequency of double parked moving vans further clogging the Imperial City’s already impossible traffic congestion. Republicans are holding small parties saying good-bye to old friends; Democrats are holding big parties saying hello to new friends. Democratic parties are bigger because the crowd is swelled by lobbyists and general hangers-on who know that a lot of jobs and money will soon be changing hands and just maybe there might be something for them.

Republican Angst and Democratic Triumphalism have been amply reported elsewhere. A modest consolation for Republicans who so enjoyed watching Democrats carve each other up in the very extended nomination battle is to now see the Donkey Party squabbling over the spoils of victory. A highlight of this entertainment has been the much publicized combat over Senate appointments in Illinois and New York. By comparison the Democratic infighting over the Salazar Succession in Colorado was fairly modest.

If you like underdogs you have to love the way Illinois’ scandal plagued Governor out maneuvered Harry Reid and the entire Democratic caucus through his artful appointment of Roland Burris.

In the “Big Apple” who could imagine that the New York Times would actually assign a reporter to count the number of times (138) Caroline Kennedy said “you know” during a forty minute interview with their editors. Where’s the respect, the love, of days gone by?

Perhaps best of all is the growing indignation spreading through the left-wing blogosphere in response to some strangely centrist impulses coming from the new administration.

Markos Moulitsas, Commandante of the very influential “Daily Kos” huffily announced that he was “absolutely through with Harry Reid” when the latter failed to oust Joe Lieberman from his key Senate committee chairmanship.

The gay lobby-already reeling from three ballot defeats on same-sex marriage ( Fla, Ariz, & Calif.)- went ballistic over Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the Inaugural Invocation.

On a wider front Obama’s generally centrist picks for his Economic and National Security teams has set media tongues wagging and the left-wing wailing.

Barack Obama- closet moderate! Who knew?

Very interesting is the curious “Dual Presidency” we’re experiencing in the eleven weeks between Election and Inauguration. President-Elect Obama properly reminds us that the country only has one President at a time, but someone forgot to tell Joe Biden who’s already off on a world-wide junket meeting foreign leaders ( Joe may become the best Presidential side-show since Billy Carter).

This split-screen effect is most evident in the very different way Obama has responded to economic vs. foreign policy issues.

On the economy- clearly the country’s top issue and the one that elected him- Obama has weighed in frequently, forcefully, and in general usefully. Obviously it is the economy and other domestic issues ( e.g. health care, energy, environment) that he feels the greatest affinity for, as is also the case with Congressional Democrats.

On foreign policy however Obama has been strikingly more reticent, entirely happy to allow President Bush to deal with those “hot potatoes” that have made the front page in recent weeks- rising tensions between India and Pakistan post Mumbai, lengthening casualty lists in Afghanistan, growing evidence of Iran’s imminent nuclear capacity, Russia’s interdiction of gas supplies to Western Europe, and the violent renewal of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

On these issues Obama and his party seem very wary, almost viewing them as an annoying distraction from the domestic issues that they are truly eager to pursue. This discomfort with America’s foreign challenges reveals a deep fault line that has haunted the Democratic party for over forty years. From Vietnam forward the related issues of foreign policy and national security have divided Democrats and cost them several elections.

A great irony emerges: Democrats-desperately wanting to spend money on huge initiatives- are constrained by an economy that is going broke. In contrast those issues which have been the Democrat’s Achilles Heel for two generations are pressing in upon them with an urgency that cannot be met by “referral to committee”.

Barack Obama will not be the first President who won office to pursue one agenda, only to find that History was imposing another.

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times. Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.

Bill Richardson, politician on the make

Editor: New Mexico scion John Dendahl was the 2006 GOP nominee against Gov. Bill Richardson, recently dropped from Obama's cabinet under a cloud of scandal. We asked Dendahl, now a Coloradan, for his candid impressions of a 30-year acquaintance with Richardson. Here they are. LEAVING EMPEROR BILL'S REALM Years of Buyers’ Remorse over Richardson Lie Ahead in the Land of Enchantment

Moving away from New Mexico in early 2007 was neither easy nor fun. The state calls itself “Land of Enchantment,” an apt description in many ways. The lovely city of Santa Fe had been my family home for about 130 years. I am among the third of four Dendahl generations born in Santa Fe and had spent most of my 68 years there.

However, perhaps hearkening to the echo of Ayn Rand’s fictional hero John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, my wife and I decided to leave. New Mexico has long carried a rap for political malodor on account of corruption growing out of patronage. Under the “leadership” of Gov. Bill Richardson, political corruption had grown from several traditional pockets to envelop the entire state.

Richardson’s combination of pay-to-play and ruthless retaliation have dragged to the level of prostitute or whipped dog too many citizens who should be principled civic leaders. Something bordering on a cross between a brothel and a pound no longer felt like home!

I’ll explain how one can make such an accusation, but first an important disclaimer.

In mid-2006, the Republican candidate for governor withdrew and the party’s governing committee designated me as his successor on the ballot for the general election in November. I was decisively defeated by the incumbent Richardson. Some would like to attribute my move a few months later to that loss. I had had no expectation of defeating a man who had been in public office for most of a quarter of a century and would spend at least 40 times what I did in a 20-week campaign.

I loved my state, found Richardson disgusting, and went into this campaign determined to expose for voters the dismal conditions into which they were being plunged. Let the electoral chips fall where they may.

Richardson and I “met” via a phone call from him in 1979. I was a NM business executive whose name was periodically in the papers as a nuclear energy advocate. He was a recent carpet-bagger who picked the state as a good prospect to elect him to the U.S. House and was looking for campaign support. When that 10-minute call ended, I thought to myself the man is a pandering liar. I met him personally at a friend’s home a few weeks later, where he and his wife were passing out palm cards. The first “promise” on the palm card was directly opposite to the main point he emphasized in our earlier conversation, thus affirming my first impression. I have never encountered another individual whose bad character was so instantly obvious to me yet so apparently opaque to many others.

Richardson lost that 1980 congressional race to the Republican incumbent, but New Mexico gained a new U.S. House seat one election later. Richardson won the new seat in 1982 and remained in it until early 1997 when Bill Clinton appointed him to be the U.S. representative to the United Nations. During 16 years’ service in Congress, Richardson continued to vindicate regularly my first impression – a pandering liar.

It wasn’t until his taking office in 2003 as New Mexico’s governor, however, that he revealed himself to be a dictator as well. Illustrative of his hubris was his immediate move to replace his predecessor’s appointees on boards (e.g., university regents) to which they had been constitutionally appointed to constitutionally set terms. He simply demanded their resignations, then replaced them with appointees who, again on demand, signed undated letters of resignation which could be dated and “accepted” if, as and when the dictator chose for any reason whatsoever.

An early embarrassment was administered by a university student-regent, Felicia Ybarra. She refused to vote as instructed for chairman of her university’s board of regents, then, alone in a face-to-face meeting with Richardson and some of his staff, refused to resign and accept an alternative appointment. Richardson quietly tucked his tail between his legs and let the matter pass. It must be added that Ybarra was alone in the meeting because her mother, who had accompanied her on the 300-mile trip to Santa Fe from Las Cruces, was barred from the meeting and made to remain in a reception area.

It should have come as no surprise that a man whose privileged youth was spent in his mother’s native Mexico City would govern like Mexico’s infamous PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) which, with a minor interruption here or there, has exercised one-party control of that country for nearly a century. That Barack Obama selected Richardson for a Cabinet position is clear evidence that 1) pay-to-play is fine so long as you don’t get busted, or 2) his vetting operation, having missed something so obvious in Richardson’s M.O., is utterly incompetent.

Pay to-play

No major New Mexico news organization has had a sustained effort to focus light on, and critique, Richardson’s pay-to-play, his profligate spending, or his ruthlessness. However, isolated reports have appeared, such as an early one on the large campaign contributions made by individuals who later found their way into appointive positions in state government or choice boards. No new ground being plowed there, to be sure, but a hint of things to come.

Organized Labor represents practically no one in the private sector in New Mexico, and lost its legal right to represent public employees when the relevant statute “sunsetted” during the term of Richardson’s predecessor, Gary Johnson. The Legislature didn’t have the votes to override Johnson’s veto of its bill to extend. With direct contributions and indirect expenditures, Labor lavishly supported Richardson’s 2002 campaign for governor. One of its most aggressive bosses, Brian Condit, was soon the Richardson transition organization’s apparent gatekeeper for appointive positions.

Labor got its big reward by immediate restoration of its collective bargaining statute without a sunset, then card-check recognition (that is, no secret ballot elections) of two unions for bargaining units spread around the state, then combination of the bargaining units into such large and ungainly wholes that employees have no chance whatsoever of mounting successful decertification campaigns. It won again when the Richardson lackeys on the University of New Mexico board of regents put a provision in a $185 million hospital construction contract – a “project labor agreement” – to eliminate any possible cost savings through awards to non-union contractors.

Among Richardson albatrosses around New Mexico’s neck is a so-called commuter train, heavy rail no less, running about 100 miles in a corridor having fewer than a million people. A billion dollar boondoggle. Richardson obliged the Burlington Northern Santa Fe by buying and taking over about 300 miles of BNSF track that was probably more liability than asset (the 100-mile “commuter” corridor plus another 200 miles into southern Colorado). BNSF got $75 million taxpayer dollars from Richardson; tens of thousands came to Richardson’s campaign account from BNSF and affiliates.

A September 24, 2006 Albuquerque Journal article (I just found it again in three minutes on the paper’s Website) told the eye-popping story of approval by the Richardson administration of access to a major East-West limited access artery in Albuquerque for a real estate development by the family of Pete Daskalos. Access by other developers had been denied, as had access for a fire station. Soon, something like $130,000 made its way into Richardson’s campaign coffers from various Daskalos family interests. This fandango alone should have tipped Obama’s vetters, if they cared, that their man Richardson was too hot to handle.

PRI-style ruthlessness

The candidate I replaced on the ballot had been severely hampered in fund-raising on account of potential donors’ fear of retribution, reportedly including actual warnings to some. I was confident from my more than eight years’ chairing the state Republican Party and raising a great deal of money that I could get past that. Well, maybe not as it turned out.

Among my finance director’s first calls for support was to a close friend, a Republican real estate developer long prominent in the Albuquerque business community. She asked if he and his wife would host a fund-raising event. He called back promptly the following day to report that, much as he and his wife wished I could become governor, they couldn’t face the risk of Richardson’s retaliation when their name(s) showed up on public records as my supporters.

I couldn’t believe my ears when she reported this to me. So in a few days I called this friend. He not only confirmed, but reported a conversation that morning at a breakfast meeting of the Economic Forum (an association of Albuquerque business leaders) during which others had expressed the same intention: let someone else support Dendahl and bear the consequences meted out by our ruthless governor.

Ditto Hobbs in Lea County, an oil and gas producing area in the Permian Basin. Nearly all local officeholders are Republicans, and George W. Bush won decisively there in 2000 and 2004. However, I was told going in by a locally-prominent close friend that I would be able to raise zilch: reportedly, Richardson’s local enforcer and the chairman of his State Transportation Commission had the word out that economically important local activities – a horse-racing track/casino operation, a private prison, highway building and a budding uranium enrichment plant – could all be hurt by any showing of financial support for Richardson’s opponent. That well was dry.

So I went next door to Carlsbad, in Eddy County. When Richardson was in Congress, he was the single most effective opponent of a federal facility proposed in that county, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), designed to dispose of transuranic (TRU) waste produced by research and production in the Nation’s nuclear weapons program. The project was wildly popular in Eddy County, but miserably opposed by the usual anti-nuclear environmentalists in Richardson’s district hundreds of miles away around Santa Fe and Taos. Ironically, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory near Santa Fe was one facility in need of WIPP to get rid of locally-stored TRU waste. But Richardson pandered to the enviros and lied to the rest of us: “I’m for WIPP as long as it’s 100-percent safe,” he said, knowing nothing, not even that lie, is 100-percent safe.

I had worked for years with the Carlsbad mayor and a couple of his predecessors, as well as the county’s delegation in the state Legislature, to counter the work of Richardson and his enviro allies. When I asked the mayor for help with my campaign, he acknowledged that Carlsbad owed me big time for all the WIPP help, “but I can’t put my city at risk,” Nothing coming from there.

In a community 25 miles north of Santa Fe is a prominent businessman known for damn-the-torpedoes, full-speed-ahead courage. During a visit shortly after my nomination, he pledged $10,000 to my campaign. After several weeks’ wait, a $10,000 check came in from a source entirely unknown to my campaign staff and me. I smelled a rat and called the pledgor to see if this were payment of the pledge and he said it was. I told him I wasn’t going to commit a felony (accepting a contribution from a donor with knowledge that the money came from another) and the check would be returned. Another day, another friend cowed by the specter of Richardson’s wrath.

And so it went all over the state. To be sure, there were principled, courageous people who provided generous support; however, the Richardson organization assured through brute intimidation that that would be a comparative trickle.

My wife and I now live happily near Denver. Since we moved here nearly two years ago, hardly a month has passed without news of some new or developing scandal among those ruling New Mexico, adding to the pile of vindication for our decision to move away.

It might be pointed out that, like New Mexico’s, Colorado’s recent electoral results haven’t favored my side, either. However, whether its governments trend left or right, I believe Colorado has the necessary critical mass of press and community leadership to squelch promptly the sort of corruption Richardson has made endemic throughout New Mexico. Sadly for New Mexico, formation of a similarly corrective critical mass seems light years away.

The church of climatology

One of the things that has always confounded me about many liberals is their arrogance. They are so darn certain they are right that they are unable to entertain any divergent views. Ever try and have a truly rational discussion with a liberal on race? On abortion? How about the war in Iraq? Or Guantanamo Bay? As they say on the Sopranos: Fuggedaboutit.

There are no areas of compromise on what I call the signal issues of the left. And even worse, if you dare to think differently, you are immediately attacked as a racist, a sexist, a fascist or just plain stupid. Using such personal attacks with such highly inflammatory labels has the effect of putting those with opposing views on the defensive, and distracting the discussion from the issue at hand. It is a very common -- and very effective -- way for the left to quell honest debate on many of the most important issues of the day. It's disingenuous. And it works.

Climate change is a perfect example of this. Bill McKibben at the left-leaning Foreign Policy magazine has a fantastically irresponsible piece on global warming where he claims without qualification that global warming is an irrefutable fact and that it might already be too late to save the planet. The science is apparently settled:

Every national academy of science, long lists of Nobel laureates, and in recent years even the science advisors of President George W. Bush have agreed that we are heating the planet. Indeed, there is a more thorough scientific process here than on almost any other issue: Two decades ago, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and charged its scientists with synthesizing the peer-reviewed science and developing broad-based conclusions. The reports have found since 1995 that warming is dangerous and caused by humans. The panel’s most recent report, in November 2007, found it is “very likely” (defined as more than 90 percent certain, or about as certain as science gets) that heat-trapping emissions from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.

According to McKibben, the IPCC (a UN sponsored body that is rife with political considerations) has decided that humans are warming the planet -- and so it must be true. He speaks as if the science of geologic activities on the earth -- a planet billions of years old -- is settled fact because a group of scientists have been studying the issue for twenty years or so. That he speaks with such certainty of the science behind temperature change within earth's complex ecosystem is the height of arrogance. How do we know that this isn't normal change in the ebb and flow of the earth's climate process? Doesn't anyone recall that the earth was once covered in ice? And that the onslaught of the ice age happened so quickly that it wiped the dinosaurs from the face of the planet?

McKibben has no such questions, however. His article also includes a strange defense of China as a main culprit of the carbon dioxide that he blames for heating up the earth -- and herein lies a clue as to his political motivations. McKibben argues that while it is true that China has overtaken the U.S. as the main producer of carbon emissions, the only fair way to view the issue is on a per capita basis: because China has four times the population of the U.S., China is not as bad a carbon scofflaw as America is:

And by that standard, each Chinese person now emits just over a quarter of the carbon dioxide that each American does. Not only that, but carbon dioxide lives in the atmosphere for more than a century. China has been at it in a big way less than 20 years, so it will be many, many years before the Chinese are as responsible for global warming as Americans.

Starting to see the picture? China produces more carbon emissions that the U.S., but we are the bigger sinners, since they are new to the game and we've been doing it for years. And, if that isn't bad enough, McKibben actually gives credit to the Chinese political leadership for doing more about global warming than we are:

What’s more, unlike many of their counterparts in the United States, Chinese officials have begun a concerted effort to reduce emissions in the midst of their country’s staggering growth. China now leads the world in the deployment of renewable energy, and there’s barely a car made in the United States that can meet China’s much tougher fuel-economy standards.

Maybe McKibben hasn't been paying attention to the air quality issues athletes faced at the Beijing Olympics, or the tremendous air quality problems throughout China that have created serious health issues. China has one of the worst environmental records in history, and their rapid industrialization has been virtually without restraint.

But none of this matters when you worship at the Church of Climatology, where faith trumps fact every time. It is more important to punish the culture of consumption in the United States and place the blame on Americans who drive SUV's and other cars that the left finds to be a sin against their belief that everyone should ride a bike to work. We are the original sinners, after all; we are the true crucible of industry. It is because of America that the automobile is so ubiquitous in our world.

So according to McKibben we must repent and change our deadly ways. And even then, it may be too late:

The only question now is whether we’re going to hold off catastrophe. It won’t be easy, because the scientific consensus calls for roughly 5 degrees more warming this century unless we do just about everything right. And if our behavior up until now is any indication, we won’t.

And the left always says that conservatives practice scare tactics!

Now, I'm not a scientist and I don't pretend to play on on the Internet. But I've done a little bit of research, and the science of climate change is not settled. Take a quick look at the informative article, for example, at the aptly named JunkScience.com, which takes you through the science of greenhouse gasses and global warming. The most interesting section is the following:

Who says it (the earth) is warming catastrophically?

Humans have only been trying to measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. As we've already pointed out, the estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth's temperature, generally given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004

We are pretty sure it was cold before the 1880 commencement of record and we would probably not handle the situation too well if such conditions returned but there has been no demonstrable catastrophic warming while people have been trying to measure the planet's temperature.

If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded history" should happen just about every year -- although half a degree over a century is hardly something to write home about -- so there's really nothing exciting about scoring the highest number when looking at such a short history.

The JunkScience.com article has lots of interesting graphs -- perhaps the most interesting is the one which shows the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature. For a full resolution image of the graph, click here.  This graph shows a slight uptick in temperature (to the tune of .5 degree centigrade over 120 years), but you see a much larger increase in carbon dioxide over the same period. Doesn't look like a clear causal relationship between the two to me -- and this is the primary foundation for both McKibben's article in Foreign Policy and almost all climate change policy.

The point here is not that the earth isn't warming -- clearly, it is to a small degree. Rather, the issue is how much and why: the left wants us to believe that the science is clear that we are to blame, and that the impact of this change will be catastrophic. These scare tactics are designed to quell open debate about climate change, and to make it impossible to discuss alternative explanations (or solutions) to the problem.

Most religions are organized around fear to a certain degree, and the Church of Climatology is no different. It's a powerful motivator for change. In this case, that change is to remake the world in a more progressive fashion -- wind, solar, electric cars, etc. The only way to get to this in a rapid fashion is to galvanize people through tales of Armageddon. How much are you willing to spend to save the earth from certain destruction? To the green movement's lasting delight the answer is plenty. And with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge, you can bet that the money will be flowing for the foreseeable future.

Nevadans, please fire Harry Reid

Once again, Sen. Harry Reid has overreached his elected authority and exposed his lack of moral authority in the Roland Burris issue. The people of Nevada could do a great service to our country in making sure that Harry Reid is defeated in 2010. He reportedly is concerned already about holding his seat and has begun interviewing campaign managers, while vacationing in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands recently, met with important campaign finance sources. Reid was quick to race to microphones declaring that Burris would not be seated in the Senate despite being legally appointed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Yesterday he commented that the Senate chooses who is seated and who is not. This morning Reid reportedly said he'd seat Burris if he promises not to run for reelection. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama have shown the same disrespect, yet today have completed flip-flopped on the issue in hopes this latest Democrat saga quickly goes away.

In the past few weeks, the Democrats from the top leadership down, thought they would quickly destroy Gov. Blago in order to ensure there were no dots connected between him and the incoming president. Why did they cave in the last several hours? They don't want to be accused of participating in a race matter, and they want to pacify Blago because they fear there is damaging info yet to come as that investigation moves forward.

Time for Nevada to assist Harry Reid in finding other work.