What rule by Democrats brings

It has often been said that, as California goes, so goes the nation. And for good reason. With the largest population and so many talented and influential people, the Golden State has long set the standard, for good or for ill, in both the public and private sector. It is the public sector that concerns us now. Long before Democrats took control of our national government, they had effective control over California government, whether or not there were Republican governors. Democrat control of Congress for half a century limited what Republican could presidents do, too.

Some have likened California government to a kind of social experiment in which every political, economic, social or pseudo-scientific nostrum gets free play because of the iron lock Democrats have on the legislature. As long as redistricting has been in the hands of the legislature, district lines have been drawn to freeze the political advantage of the permanent Democrat majority and Republican minority.

Even term limits have done nothing to change this. Time will tell whether the measure enacted by California voters last year to put the redistricting power in a commission will make any difference either.

In any event, because of their dominance–and more important, because of their "progressive" (i.e., interventionist, latitudinarian) principles–Democrats now threaten to enfeeble commerce, drive away entrepreneurs, curtail government by consent and, as practically everyone knows, bankrupt the state's government.

Surely the most useless comment that is made about politics is that party labels don’t matter, that one should vote for the person and not for the party, that there’s no difference between the parties, that we can all get along if we just put aside partisan differences, ad nauseam.

California Republicans are pretty disappointed in Gov. Schwarzenegger because he wants to balance the budget with a combination of spending cuts, tax increases and borrowing (not to mention kicking the fiscal can further down the road to the "out years"), and they are right to be. A more principled man, like Tom McClintock, for instance, who also ran in the recall election that dispatched Gov. Gray Davis, would be standing firm.

However, since Californians have who they have, and especially since there are lopsided Democrat majorities in both the Assembly and the Senate, a "solution" will ultimately be found that is fiscally irresponsible. What is needed is not only need a staunch Republican governor, but also a Republican legislature.

Democrats on principle oppose tax cuts and spending cuts because they want a big, intrusive government that overrides free citizens in a free marketplace. They believe that markets are incapable of allocating resources fairly, because they believe "fair" means equal conditions rather than equal rights. They are oblivious to the fact that unrestrained government spending, with its corollary of high taxes on incomes, sales and properties, is lowering the standard of living and diminishing economic opportunities.

The flip side of government micro managing commerce is moral latitudinarianism for the populace. Sexuality freed from moral or legal constraints is consistent with the short-sighted, present-oriented perspective that the government has aided and abetted via the credit crisis in which many people, rich and poor and in between, have gotten in way over their heads.

Consistent with this pernicious policy is the virtual conspiracy by all three branches of state government to challenge the right of the people to determine what their constitution shall protect or secure. Together Democrat Attorney General Jerry Brown, Democrats in the legislature and, of course, a majority of the State Supreme Court seek to set aside the clear decision of Californians last fall to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The Court’s ruling last May that homosexual and lesbian couples have a "right" to marriage, which not only the current common sense limitation but even civil unions evidently cannot adequately satisfy, might have provoked a constitutional crisis from an attorney general who is required to uphold the law in court or a state legislature which is authorized to legislate, but in fact all three branches are in cahoots.

The shocking thing about the California government’s movement to shut down Proposition 8 is that it’s no secret and therefore it is not, strictly speaking, a conspiracy. Considering the fact that it is aimed at the right of self government, the foundation for our republic, it is deserving of the massive public outrage that an offense of this magnitude should generate. It must not be allowed to stand. Only Republicans can be counted upon to perform this necessary work.

Obama's first 48: Do you feel safer yet?

Barack Obama has been president for all of 48 hours, and I already feel less safe. In one of his first official acts as president, Obama ordered the detention facility at Guantanamo closed "within a year", and officially outlawed any "enhanced interrogation" techniques that fall outside of the U.S. Army Field Manual. In a signing ceremony attended by all the usual liberal suspects, the new president said that we would confront global violence without sacrificing "our values or our ideals".  After years of criticizing the Bush Administration, Obama and the Democrats will now have a chance to do it "their way". Democrats, of course, have always put a premium on high minded ideals -- preferring things to look good, sound good and feel good -- even if they don't work well (or at all) in practice.   The notion of fighting a war against a brutal enemy -- that decapitates its prisoners and seeks to wipe us from the face of the earth -- with the high ideals of our democratic laws and rules is both naive and dangerous. It reflects the fact that most on the left have never seen the fight against Islamic extremism as a real war, but rather as a difficult issue that can be dealt with through diplomacy, so-called "soft power" and conventional law enforcement techniques. In this upside down view of the world, Miranda rights, Habeus corpus and all other protections for terrorist detainees makes perfect sense.

The immediate result of closing Guantanamo is that it will now fall on the U.S. justice system to figure out what to do with the 250 detainees that remain there. For many on the left, this presents something of an academic question; there is a common narrative among opponents of Guantanamo that those imprisoned there are mostly innocent sheep herders and others caught up in the net of American power, and thus unjustly held without trial. Nothing could be further than the truth: the majority of prisoners at Guantanamo are hardened killers who if released will take up terrorism against us again, and present a real and pressing threat to the United States.

Obama's move to close Guantanamo comes as no surprise, of course, having been a central theme of his campaign. In fact, Obama has been on record as favoring a conventional legal remedy for terrorists ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in Boumediene v Bush that Guantanamo terrorists should be granted access to the U.S. courts:

“I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday”.

Now, as president, Obama is acting to put his view of "terrorist rights" into effect.  In ruling that interrogation techniques be limited to the U.S. Army Field Manual, which limits questioning to "please" and "thank you" kind of questions, Obama has effectively tied the hands of CIA and other interrogators who seek vital intelligence about Al Qaeda and other terrorists in the field. Unlike the salons of Paris, London or now Washington, D.C., the CIA and U.S. military operate in the real world, where innocent lives may depend on extracting information from evil doers intent on destroying us.

But that apparently doesn't matter to Obama, who with a swipe of his pen, has decided that he and the other liberals now in charge of our national security apparatus know more about security than does the current head of the CIA, General Michael Hayden, who has testified repeatedly in front of Congress that enhanced interrogation techniques are critically important to our security. Rather than study the issue from the inside and take some time to make the right decision on this important issue, Obama has placed politics over public safety in unilaterally disarming our intelligence officials as a grand act of political theater.

The left believes that some quid pro quo will exist between us and our enemies; that somehow us living up to our ideals will make a difference with those who seek our destruction and are willing to go to any lengths to ensure it. It is hard to believe that smart people can be so naive as to the real nature of the threats arrayed against us.

I've said many times that the left lives in a fantasy world of their own making, and this is further proof that with the Democrats in charge we will be in greater danger because of it.

TABOR for dummies (and Dems)

Here they go again. Faced with a budget that's hemorrhaging dollars, it was only a matter of time before one of our spendthrift legislators made headlines by erroneously pointing the finger of blame at Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). Never mind that last spring Governor Ritter and the Democrat-controlled legislature ignored numerous warning signals of a looming recession.

Never mind that they ignored the consensus lesson of the last "budget crisis" -- when times are good, save a little money for when times aren't so good.

Never mind that in November voters rejected higher taxes and defended the few remaining constraints on government spending.

Nope, to hear the Denver Democrats tell the story, the problem with the state budget isn't the economy or undisciplined spending. A few degrees further from reality, newly-elected Boulder Democrat Sen. Rollie Heath says the problem is TABOR.

Apparently Sen. Heath didn't hear about Referendum C which loosed Colorado's government from most of TABOR's constraints ‹ except for that pesky requirement that voters still get to decide whether to raise taxes.

"We're hamstrung," Heath complained to a legislative committee even before taking office. "Not only does (TABOR) put a limitation (on spending), it takes away your flexibility. We desperately need flexibility right now."

So perhaps it's time a for a quick session of "TABOR for Dummies" to benefit anyone else who's been elected to state government after spending the past four years in a galaxy far, far away.

Lesson 1 - TABOR doesn't limit spending during a recession.

To quote James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid!" During a recession, the limiting factor on state spending is the economy. After all, Colorado ‹ unlike Congress ‹ has a balanced budget amendment, so the state can't spend money it doesn't have.

Lesson 2 - Ref C doesn't expire in 2010.

When the voters passed Ref C in 2005, they changed the way the original TABOR worked. Even after portions of Ref C expire in 2010, the new, revised spending limit under TABOR 2.0 will no longer "ratchet down" spending during a recession and will rarely restrict spending during an economic recovery.

According to the legislature's economists, TABOR will not limit government's ability to spend in the foreseeable future.

Lesson 3 - Amendment 23 doesn't expire in 2010.

The constitutional amendment that actually makes matters worse during a recession is Amendment 23, which mandates that K-12 education spending must increase every year - even when revenues are decreasing.

In the current budget, Amendment 23 requires a spending increase of $189 million. Meanwhile, economists predict that total general fund spending must be reduced to $172 million less than last year.

K-12 education accounts for 41 percent of the general fund budget, so the remaining 59 percent of the budget must be cut by $172 million to compensate for falling revenue plus another $189 million to accommodate Amendment 23.

Will Sen. Heath and his fellow Democrats buck the teachers unions to pull the teeth of the real shark in the budget process? Don't hold your breath.

Lesson 4 - Flexibility under TABOR 2.0.

Ever since Ref C suspended the TABOR spending limit, legislators have enjoyed absolute flexibility to spend, to save or to strike a balance between the two.

Guess which option they chose? Not saving. Not balance. Just more spending.

The flexibility they haven't enjoyed is the flexibility to raise taxes without a vote -- although they even tried that with Gov. Ritter's property tax increase.

Herein lies the lesson for voters:

For four years, legislators have budgeted without TABOR's training wheels. They could have saved money during good years, but they didn't. They should have asked our permission before raising property taxes, but they didn't.

What possible justification exists for relaxing the remaining safeguards that protect taxpayers?

Mark Hillman served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

Is this a movie?

Barack Obama said this week that this inauguration is not about him.  He's right.  Rather, it's about another huge influx of cash into our political system by donors, foreign and domestic, that have a clear vision for this country.  It's not about him, but he happened to have some of the qualities such as charisma and the gift of eloquence that enticed and seduced the money machines and high-powered  liberals enough to make them want to knight him as The One.  As they say, always follow the money.  Once Barack Obama's handlers decided he should go back on his word (That used to be a sacred contract in this country--guys like Abe Lincoln really bought into it.) on campaign financing, Mr. Obama was able to attract $740.6 million to his campaign.  In keeping his word, John McCain and the incredibly weak, inept campaign system behind him, had only $81.4 million to spend.  Follow the money.  It was never going to be much of a contest. 

Remember what the Democrats did with some of that $740.6 million?  They spent it on flash and pizazz and propaganda.  "Yes We Can" still resonates throughout the country.  In a CBS commercial, CBS is asking if they can put out a prime time line-up that you'll want to watch.  They answer for you with, "Yes We Can".  Pepsi is using the mantra to boost sales and the beat, along with the Pepsi Generation, goes on.  If the ongoing drum beat is getting on your nerves, the mute button works well.  What we can't unfortunately tune out is rhetoric of the RINO's such as Lindsey Graham sitting at the right hand of The One, saying he thinks all the Cabinet picks are going to be just fine and other pathetic ramblings.  Sen. Graham and his cohorts in the Senate are useful idiots in this Hollywood production we are calling an Inauguration and new administration.  They aren't just joining the "Yes We Can" chant, they've taken it to the next level with "Yes We Must"!

Speaking of Hollywood, this entire scenario may one day make a great movie.  Only in our dreams would we see situations like Mrs. Clinton sitting in confirmation hearings and telling the country that her husband is going to continue to accept funding for his projects, no matter the source, no matter the possible conflict of interest.  In that steely Hillary tone,  you'll do what I say.  End of subject.    Only in a movie would they trot out Sandy Berger to talk about how great things are going to be.  He is the only person likely to have ever stolen and destroyed documents from the National Archives and isn't sitting in a prison in Canon City.  He's another cast member that we should love and overlook his pesky little bad habits.  

Only in a movie would the American taxpayer be sold a bill of goods that if we don't pony up and bail out Wall Street, the world will end.  We would then go on to see those same companies use some of our money to help make Inauguration '09 a wonderful, extravagant success, and nary a CEO ever hauled up before a Congressional hearing panel to answer for their misconduct.  Only in a movie would the media buy into the hype to such a degree that cable stations are having celebratory countdowns this weekend much like they have on New Year's Eve.  It could not be believed except in a movie that labor unions that would not budge on any compromise in order to 'save' the auto industry, did in fact, have millions just months earlier to send to Mr. Obama's campaign.  

It would have to be a comedy plot for the First Couple's favorite cheesecake, Eli's in Chicago,  to spend 7 days and use 200 employees to bake and deliver a 1000 pound cake for the Inauguration when the same couple campaigned on redistribution of wealth and everybody having to have 'skin in the game'---what about the poor and starving only a few blocks away in D.C.?  Are they getting their fair share of cheesecake?  Crooks and cronies and people that forget to pay their taxes will occupy the highest seats of power in the land.  Watergate is starting to look like a segment on Sesame Street.  Only in a movie would the majority vote be persuaded by sit com and late night TV humor.  It's a movie plot, all right.  A real blockbuster.

The campaign that had unlimited resources for TV ads and spectacular productions (remember the convention in Denver?) now has obvious continued support.  Labor unions are paying big money to put out TV ads to push the card-check system.  We see actors and actresses that appear to represent the hardest working among us, imploring us with their soulful eyes to please get on board with the new administration and allow card-check to advance upon us in the quiet of night.  We aren't supposed to read or contemplate the countless written reports and even Congressional testimony about employees being harassed and badgered at work by union 'persuaders'.  Just like nationalized healthcare will be the savior for American industry, card-check is the icing on the cake.  Just sit there in front of your TV and be mezmerized and seduced by these commercials.  Hollywood is entrenched once again in the propagandizing of many and driving the political policy of a country that has more interest in Miley, Angelina and Britney than it has in addressing tough challenges and staying on course.

What are you going to do on Tuesday?  I know that I am not going to glue myself to the 24 hour coverage of the Inauguration.  I won't be able to stand the sight of Oprah and Hollywood trying to pretend for a day that they are true blue Americans in the spirit of Abe Lincoln and the Founding Fathers.  Every single Hollywood liberal that's vocal has trashed their country up one side and down the other, both here and abroad.  Kinda like only going to church on Christmas and Easter.  We aren't supposed to judge but you have to wonder where the commitment and sincerity really are.  The Democrats will party heartily, laughing at the Right all the way till morning.  I will fly my American flag on Tuesday, not because I celebrate the excess and hype, but in memory of what once was, and what may be again if our fellow citizens ever tire of the double standards and start thinking again with some real discernment. 

I wish the Obama's safety and happiness and I certainly hope their children are protected from the glitter of the media and have reasonably normal childhoods in the White House.  The country is eager to focus now on style and fashion, anything cool and hip and very much outside the norm of what we typically see in the White House.  We've got ourselves a really cool president to lead us at a time when we may want to put aside terrorism and financial threats to our country.  If as the song says, "It's hip to be square," then I've found my niche for the next four years. 

I won't watch all the glamour and fuss that is being made now and will endure through at least Wednesday.  I'll be one of the square ones, quietly writing to the GOP Congressmen in Washington that really are doing great work.  They deserve our encouragement.  I'll write searing letters to the RINO's in the Senate that need to find other work. 

While on the subject of movies, since there's so much talk about President Lincoln these days, I recommend you watch the old movie, "Shenandoah" starring Jimmy Stewart, who played a farmer named Anderson.  We surely could use some Mr. Anderson's right about now, but in real life, not in a movie.

Colorado Dems flunk basic econ

As Obama pledges to use taxpayer money to hand out cash and prizes in the name of jump-starting the economy, Colorado Democrats seem to be taking notes. But perhaps they should start taking a basic college economics course. Their chosen model just won't work. A quick read through the daily papers and opening day remarks by the state's leading Democrat lawmakers revealed their plans to increase government regulation and taxation, two actions all but guaranteed to worsen the state’s economic prospects.

Here’s just a quick sample of their plans. Democrats want to mandate new business regulations. Rep. Mark Ferrandino, a Denver Democrat, is introducing legislation to force banks to give loan defaulters a “temporary timeout” to renegotiate their loans. Rep. Andy Kerr of Lakewood hopes to force businesses to grant a week of unpaid leave so parents can go to school events.

The trouble with these nice sounding ideas is that they will increase government intrusion into private businesses and increase costs that are in turn be passed on to consumers.

Democrats also want to increase the size of government. Only the state’s projected $604 million budget shortfall restrains their ambitions. According to the Rocky Mountain News, a $13 billion price tag for start-up costs is the only thing stopping some Democrats from moving forward with a socialized medicine scheme.

Even so, Rep. Mary Hodge of Adams County thinks a smaller version is doable. Never mind that government takeover of healthcare is a prescription for long lines, escalating costs, deficit spending, and loss of personal freedom.

To improve education, Rep. Karen Middleton of Aurora suggests that we should increase government bureaucracy by creating an "Office of Dropout Prevention and Student Reengagement." State Rep. Debbie Benefield of Arvada wants the government to guarantee every student has access to a high-quality teacher. I’m guessing parental choice isn’t what she has in mind rather the creation of yet another government teacher training program or teacher salary initiative. On the welfare front, legislation is poised to create an “Economic Opportunity Task Force” (at least it’s not a blue ribbon panel) to develop a “strategic, integrated and comprehensive plan to help lift families out of poverty.”

Bear in mind that every dollar spent on state bureaucracy is one not spent by entrepreneurs to create jobs, charitable organizations to provide real help, or individuals to invest in their own future.

Democrats think they can create jobs, stimulate growth, and generate prosperity through the creation of more government programs, hand-outs, and regulations. Unfortunately, they missed the lessons of the 20th Century, subtle as they were, like the Great Depression, 70's stagflation, and the collapse of centrally planned economies.

“There are severe limits to the good that the government can do for the economy, but there are almost no limits to the harm it can do,” observed Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman. The direction sought by the majority party this legislative session points to darker days ahead.

Krista Kafer is a Denver-based education consultant, frequent cohost on Backbone Radio, and regular columnist for Face the State.com, from which this is reprinted by permission.