From Jindrichuv Hradec you can continue on Vienna-Prague Greenway via Pluhův Žďár and châteaux Červená Lhota to Tabor, or you can take wonderful detour via Southern Bohemia on Rozmberk Heritage Greenway and connect to Salzburg – Prague Greenway.

To cycle via the Rozmberk Heritage Greenway you pass through Trebon Region, locally called Třeboňsko, an area of countless fish ponds, largest of which are Svet and Rozumberk ponds, with deep-rooted tradition of freshwater fish farming dating back to middle ages. This is also a region of scenic forests and meadows, in a way, Bohemia’s Lake District.

Trebon town was a medieval stronghold with fortification walls and moat is still largely intact. Among worthwhile sites to visit while in Trebon is the tomb of the Schwarzenberk family and the Trebon renaissance châteaux.

You may decide not to cycle north to Jindrichuv Hradec once in Nova Bystrice and take a shorter route to Nove Hrady skirting the northernmost point of Austria. The route offers a possibility to overnight at a well-known Hotel Perslak with fine panorama of surrounding countryside. From here the bike trail continues skirting the border passing through deep woods on its way to Chlum u Třeboně, a small town with a nice baroque pilgrimage church and a châteaux.

The ultimate destination for the day is town of Nove Hrady, a gateway to the mountainous border of Southern Bohemia of the same name. The town has a prominent gothic castle, encircled by an impressive moat. It was built in late 1200 to protect one of the trade routes that connected Austria with Prague. Burnt to the ground in 15th century, even destroyed by earthquake two centuries later, it was conquered by Karel Bonaventura Buquoy, Holy Roman Emperor Matthias’ general sent to quell the rebellion of the Bohemian aristocracy in 1618, war that became known as the Thirty Years’ War and which eventually installed the 300-year rule of the Habsburgs on the Czech lands. The Nove Hrady castle remained in the hands of the Buquoy’s descendants until 1945. Today it is well-maintained and in the ownership of the state.

Nove Hrady also has a striking renaissance town hall and a late gothic Church of St. Peter and Paul that was rebuilt in later part of 1600 and furnished with a remarkable baroque altar. On the outskirts of town is a wonderful nature reserve of Terčino Údolí, Theresa’s Valley. Cycling though the reserve is a scenic alternative to the main road and the trail takes you to a renovated medieval fortress of Cuknštejn on the way out of town toward Horni Stropnice.

Happy birthday Independence Institute! Your detractors are many, and you just keep on treading along. Indeed, as so many cry out that you are insignificant they have to create counter organizations to oppose what you stand for.

Story HERE, and be sure to read the comments!

And just what does the Independence Institute have to say concerning Obamacare? Well, here is a very small part…

© 2008, Benjamin Hummel. To see more cartoons like this go to www.politixcartoons.com.

E.J. Dionne puts his spin on the defeat of two tax-limiting Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) votes from last Tuesday, one in Maine and one in Washington state.  Dionne interestingly characterizes anti-tax folks as “government haters.”  But it gets much worse.

For evidence of the inherent goodness of anti-TABOR forces, he uses as evidence two anti-TABOR advertisements.  Dionne hilariously then quotes the ads, which are clearly designed to play on people’s fears (What about our schools?  What about our community centers?  What about my home health care?) 

As such, I think I can safely call the anti-TABORites the party of fear.  Also, it would appear the anti-TABOR ministry of propaganda had yet to write the press release.  Probably they didn’t get their federal grant in time due to poor funding which prevented adequate staffing and therefore a timely paperwork submission.  Or something like that.

It would be interesting to examine how much money was put into the TABOR and anti-TABOR efforts and who paid for those efforts.  None is mentioned in his article.

What are the inherent functions of government?  To support our collective security would be the traditional answer.  Of course, over time things have been layered on: safety, analog-to-digital-TV-converters, education, commerce, health care, ad infinitum. 

Weird huge-government screed like Dionne’s should be provided a more vigorous illumination (or perhaps a goverment funded CT scan, which is of course, his right).

Het probleem van de dakloze Roma in Gent blijft de gemoederen beroeren. Het was deze week voorpaginanieuws in de Gentenaar . Maar het is al langer een prangend probleem voor onder andere Huize Triest – Gemeenschapshuis Tabor dat al jaren aandacht vraagt voor de gebrekkige opvang van daklozen in het algemeen en voor de Romagroep in het bijzonder.

U heeft waarschijnlijk met ongeloof de beelden gezien van de Roma die in de sloppenwijk vlakbij het Rabot wonen. Al een aantal maanden overleven ze in de verwaarloosde volkstuintjes in erbarmelijke omstandigheden. De problematiek is echter niet nieuw. Huize Triest-gemeenschapshuis Tabor dat acute nachtopvang biedt aan daklozen en vluchtelingen wordt de laatste maanden overspoeld. Daarbij zijn heel wat jonge Belgische daklozen maar ook heel wat Oost-Europese Roma. Wij interviewden Werner Van de Weghe, coördinator Huize Triest – gemeenschapshuis Tabor voor wat meer achtergrondinformatie rond deze complexe materie.

Werner Van de Weghe: “De laatste maanden worden we overspoeld met daklozen in Gent. Daarbij onderscheiden we twee grote groepen: eerst en vooral jonge daklozen tussen 20 en 35 jaar die in geen enkel project op lange termijn passen. Daarnaast merken we ook een grote groep nieuwe Europeanen. Meer bepaald Roma gezinnen uit Oost-Slowakije.

Deze week lazen wij dan ook met verbazing de berichtgeving in de kranten die het over Roemeense Roma had in de Wondelgemse Meersen. Wij kennen die mensen, ze komen al 8 maanden hier douchen, eten en ook op regelmatige basis slapen.”

Wat vond u dan bizar aan de berichtgeving?

Werner Van de Weghe: “Wat me vooral stoort, is dat de media alle Roma mensen over dezelfde kam scheren terwijl de realiteit heel wat genuanceerder is. De groep Roemeense Roma in de Wondelgemse Meersen is slechts een kleine groep en staat zeker niet borg voor de grote groep Roma uit Oost-Slowakije die we hier in onze stad kennen. Deze laatste groep wil zich echt integreren in Gent. Dit zijn geen zigeuners, als die mensen hier werk vinden, vestigen ze zich. De Roemeense Roma daarentegen trekken rond; ik vind dat een fundamenteel verschil.”

Hoe is de toestand momenteel in het gemeenschapshuis?

Werner Van de Weghe: “De instroom die wij op dit moment kennen aan daklozen, Belgen en niet-Belgen, Roma uit Oost-Slowakije en Roemenië, kunnen wij niet meer aan. We hebben onvoldoende middelen, mensen en capaciteit. De voorbije nacht bijvoorbeeld hebben hier 46 mensen de nacht doorgebracht terwijl we slechts over 16 bedden beschikken. Ik ken meer dan 30 gezinnen in Gent die overleven in kraakpanden zonder electriciteit of verwarming. De winter staat voor de deur, het is het eerste jaar dat wij het zo extreem ervaren.”

Hoe ziet u een mogelijke oplossing voor het probleem?

Werner Van de Weghe: “De Slowaakse roma zijn eigenlijk de verschoppelingen van Europa. Het grote probleem van de Oost-Slowaakse Roma in zit in hun thuisland. Ze zijn daar het slachtoffer van extreem racisme en mensonwaardige toestanden. Niemand ontvlucht zijn land voor zijn plezier..”

Wij vroegen ook Karin Temmerman, schepen van Stadsontwikkeling, Mobiliteit en Wonen bij Stad Gent naar een reactie.

Wat kan stad Gent doen voor deze mensen?

Karin Temmerman: “Wij hebben verschillende initiatieven: wij proberen hen naar het OCMW te leiden en ervan te overtuigen hun kinderen naar school te sturen. Verder hebben we hebben ook contracten met bijvoorbeeld de wijkgezondheidscentra zodat de mensen daar terecht kunnen voor dringende medische hulp. We werken ook samen met verschillende opvangcentra en KRAS, de Gentse koepel van armoedewerkingen.”

Ook zij ziet een oplossing op Europees vlak.

Karin Temmerman: “Het probleem is dat deze mensen zeer zwaar gediscrimineerd worden in hun land van herkomst en dat elke situatie hier blijkbaar beter is dan de situatie waar ze zich daar in bevinden. Daar moet absoluut iets gedaan worden. De enige instantie die dat echt kan doen is Europa.”

]]> http://mainenowandthen.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/maines-election-results/ Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:34:55 +0000 mainenowandthen http://mainenowandthen.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/maines-election-results/

Election results here in the Pine Tree State were a mixed bag.

Efforts by the Maine Legislature and the special interest groups to impose homosexual marriage upon the public by fiat met with rejection, with only four (Liberal inclaves all) of the state’s 16 counties voting to retain the recently passed law “equalizing” marriage.  No doubt the issue will resurface.

Another  citizen’s initiative to pass a version of TABOR (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) in an effort to restrain feckless spending by state government was  defeated by a substantial margin, following massive spending by the opposition in the form of endless, fear-mongering television advertisements , shamelessly  trotting out the usual heart-rending scenarios involving public safety, education, children, the sick, and seniors, promising dire consequences if the omniscient, generous, loving  government was to be limited by caps imposed by cold, selfish, and uncaring citizens.  So Maine proceeds merrily on the way to eventual bankruptcy, urged on by those who live on the funds provided by the taxpayer.

As usual, a massive bond issue of well in excess of one hundred million dollars to fund desperately needed repairs to a wide variety of infrastructure projects was blithely approved despite the trumpeting of numerous such improvements already made through the “stimulus bill” – so many Maine voters never seem to be able to comprehend that bond issues are simply a way of borrowing more money that the state has no real means of paying back without additional revenue increases of some sort and in the meantime incrementally lowering Maine’s bond rating.

Pretty much business as normal, except for the general electorate putting their foot down against the concept of homosexual marriage.  My beloved state has become a welfare haven, a social experimentation laboratory and a utopia for special interest groups.   Quite different from the self-reliant, sensible, realistic environment that I grew up in.

I am slightly cheered by the rejection of faulty leadership in Both New Jersey and Virginia.  Perhaps conservatism is beginning to exert more of an appeal to the electorate now that the dewy-eyed optimism following the last National election has run headlong into the problems associated with allowing one-party rule without the designed system of checks and balances acting to provide a safeguard for liberty.

Luckily, some things do not change.  My long-time hunting partner, an old and treasured friend from Pennsylvania arrives this Saturday and we head into the western Maine mountains for a week of ranging the woods and relaxing.  Any group of hunters has a  large collection of stories and ours goes back over 35 years.  Still, we manage to add one or two during each excursion.  I am greatly looking forward to the exploration of a new area that we have selected, since there is always so much to see and enjoy.  Venison in the freezer is a plus, but scarcely a necessity.

So for the next week or ten days I get a break – and so do my readers.  I sincerely thank all of you who elect to join me on these pages and I will be looking forward to rejoining you soon.

This morning, Governor Pawlenty announced a proposed constitutional amendment to limit state spending to the amount of revenues that were brought in the door during the previous two-year budget cycle. This proposal would limit the flexibility of policymakers to respond to changing circumstances and maintain funding for such areas as schools, health care and services that help the unemployed get back to work. And it also reacts to a non-issue in Minnesota – there is no taxpayer revolt or out-of-control spending in our state.

The exact language the Governor proposes: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require that state government general fund expenditures be limited to the amount of actual general fund revenues received by the state in the previous two-year budget period?”

Governor Pawlenty immediately made clear that his proposal isn’t the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), a tax and expenditure limiting proposal that has been circulating around the country. He’s right…it actually appears to be more strict in some ways. Tax and spending amendments like TABOR usually allow government expenditures to increase by some formula (usually inflation and population growth). Governor Pawlenty’s proposal wouldn’t allow any increase in spending until two years after the revenues increase. No increases. We collect $31 billion in FY 2010-11…we can only spend $31 billion in FY 2012-13.

What are the practical implications of his proposed amendment? Right now we are facing at least a $4 billion deficit for FY 2012-13. That assumes the state will be collecting a projected $34 billion in revenues in FY 2012-13. If the Governor’s constitutional amendment were in place, the state would only be allowed to the amount of revenues we collected in FY 2010-11 – about $31 billion. That would add an extra $3 billion to the $4 billion deficit – and suddenly policymakers would be forced to cut $7 billion from the state’s budget. $7 billion in budget cuts. On top of the painful cuts to services for the disabled, higher education, and health care that we saw in 2009. Policymakers would have to leave that extra $3 billion just sitting on the table until the FY 2014-15 biennium. Even if policymakers chose to raise revenues as part of a balanced approach to the budget shortfall, they would not be able to spend it until FY 2014-15.

Bottom line…this is a bad idea. The balance of revenues and expenditures in our state should not be rigidly set by the constitution because the economy, the population and other important aspects of our state are continually changing. Instead, Minnesota’s elected representatives must bear the responsibility of adjusting the balance of revenues and expenditures in response to an informed and public debate. A constitutionally-determined budget limit severely limits that debate and takes away the flexibility of future legislatures or local government officials to carry out their responsibility to react to unexpected circumstances and changing conditions and for the public to participate in the budgeting process. It is interesting the Governor is recommending this course just as he prepares to leave office – he would not have to govern under its arcane restrictions.

Budget expenditure limits aren’t even popular anymore. The Governor says this isn’t TABOR, but it sure is TABOR-like. Colorado was the first to adopt TABOR back in 1992. It has also been the last state (plus, Colorado voters acted to lessen its restrictions in 2005). Tax and spending limit ballot initiatives were just rejected on Tuesday in both Maine (60 percent opposed it) and Washington (55 percent opposed it). So far, serious efforts to pass similar initiatives have failed in 20 states. Growth & Justice just posted a blog on the failure of TABOR.

And its unlikely to be popular with Minnesotans. In fact, Minnesota voters have recently demonstrated that they support tax increases when they are needed – note the recent successes just this week of school referenda.

Although the Governor may be proposing this amendment, in Minnesota, he actually plays no role in amending the state’s constitution. The only path to the ballot is through the legislature. A constitutional amendment must be approved by both bodies of the legislature, just like any other session law. The Governor, however, does not need to sign it and cannot veto it. Once it has been passed by the legislature, it is placed on the ballot during the next general election. In order to succeed, a constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority of those voting in the election (not just a majority of those who vote on the amendment).

We developed materials about tax and spending limit proposals when this issue first came up in Minnesota in 2006 and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also has helpful resources.

-Christina Wessel

TABOR ballot items, we hardly knew ye!

As Josh Marshall wrote on TPM, the defeat of these two coastal TABOR referendums was “an important barometer of right-wing, anti-spending, anti-government sentiment that should not be ignored.”

Should a Republican win the governorship here in Wisconsin, might we have another TABOR bill to fight? We beat it last time. And we will do it again.

Can you renounce your state citizenship?

In the last two elections Maine voters killed a slew of referendums that would reverse course on an ever-encroaching government, reform our their terrible education system, and allow everyone to share the joy of marriage equally.

We Maine is one of ten states that don’t allow charter schools, despite mountains of evidence that charters improve education across demographics, helps alleviate the black-white achievement gap, and lower costs.  The education monopoly is unjustifiable.  The teacher’s unions don’t serve students, they don’t even do a good job serving their members.  Their cancerous growths on the state and the citizens.  This issue even unifies the Journal and the Administration.

President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are using the leverage of federal dollars to promote an increase in charter schools, which are still limited in many states by caps on their number and on funding. State and local policy makers who cave to union demands and block the growth of charters aren’t doing traditional public school students any favors.

This year, Maine followed the national trend of voting down marriage equality.  I’m young, libertarian, and reasonably well educated.  As such, the vast majority of my social contacts still in Maine are liberal, anti-religious (or at least anti-dogmatic), and strongly biased toward state authority in the guise of “better world” philosophy, combined with overwhelming social liberalism.  A typical sample reaction from my facebook feed this morning:

[Shauna] is heartsick that Mainers are voting for discrimination. That’s so 1950. Marriage is a CIVIL right, not a religious privilege. Why can’t we get that straight?

I’m totally on board with that sentiment, although I think it’s technically wrong.  Marriage is a civil union recognized by the state apparatus, but it’s also strongly religious.  Ignoring the religious implications, and the contractual aspect in the religious context is a flawed summation of the phenomenon.  Instead, it would be correct to say that marriage is, for most people in this time primarily a civil contract, not a religious one.

If we want equality and freedom, we should remove the state from the business of marriage.  It seems rational to want civil equality and religious freedom to coexist, but it seems evident that even in a deeply blue state like Maine, this isn’t acceptable to the religious community.

If the more secular crowd wants the civil contract, and the religious crowd wants the religious contract.  The only way to provide both, it seems, is to reduce the state to providing only civil unions to all.  Religious groups can perform religiously tinctured marriages in whatever fashion or combination the congregations approve.  Some denominations would opt for only heterosexual, while some would be open to all.  Religious communities could live by their own creeds, without forcing them on the secular crowd, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately that’s probably far too logical for people to accept.

Finally, TABOR. While this formulation of TABOR was probably not ideal, the fact remains that Maine’s public sector grows like a wildfire.

Maine’s national ranking for per capita personal incomes was 35th in 1992 and is 35th today. Relative to the other 50 states, we’ve made no forward progress in raising the incomes of Maine people, despite the fact that total state spending skyrocketed 113 percent over that period. We doubled state spending in little more than 15 years and what, exactly, do we have to show for it?

Not much.  More than 20 years of out-migration, especially among the young and educated.  A state government that spends twice as much for less people without any accountability or drive for efficiency.  A mythical spending cap that doesn’t cap spending, and a vocal union culture that stalls change, innovation and progress across a wide variety of industries and public services.

I’m done.  Done caring about Maine.  Done referring to myself as a Mainer.  At this point, Maine is like a crazy ex-girlfriend I’m just watching spiral down into drugs and self-destruction (or state spending and religiously orthodox public squabbling), and thinking “I got out of that relationship just in time”.

Update: Andrew Sullivan writes excellently that gay marriage is important not just for the contractual, but for more transcendent reasons.

The truth about civil marriage – why it is the essential criterion for gay equality – is that it alone explodes this core marginalization and invisibility of gay people. It alone can reach those gay kids who need to know they have a future as a dignified human being with a family. It alone tells society that gay people are equal in their loves and in their hearts and in their families – not just useful in a society with a need for talented or able individuals whose private lives remain perforce sequestered from view.

This is why it remains the prize.

I’m not sure I agree, but as an unmarried straight guy I probably take the institution for granted in some ways.  Given that, especially among those of you who have firsthand experience with the aspects of marriage that transcend the contract, what do you think of my proposal above?  Would it be effective in cutting off what Mr. Sullivan calls the “christianist right”?

I think it would, and effectively marginalize discriminatory groups.  Additionally, the ‘equal protection’ argument would be satisfied, in the sense that you wouldn’t have been deprived anything to which you had a constitutional or legal right.

Dvě zatoulaná svědectví z tábora

Nakrmení x hladových krků

Den před odjezdem hlavní kuchařka (Ria) zjistila, že na poslední snídani máme jen dva pecny chleba a půlku krájeného chleba. Při normální snídani jsme spotřebovali čtyři pecny. Na večerní poradě vedoucích tento problém sdělila hlavnímu vedoucímu (Maťovi) a ten po malé chvilce přemýšlení odpověděl: „Mám ti připomenout, jak Ježíš nakrmil 4 000 lidí v poušti?“ Bylo ticho… a my jsme věděli, že to dobře dopadne, z lidského hlediska nepochopitelné. Přesně polovina jídla může stačit?

Ráno jsme krájeli chleba, kdo to neviděl, nepochopí, krajíc krájeného chleba se rozkrajoval na dva tenké krajíce. Na snídani jsme dávali vždy půlku chleba a teď čtvrtky a ještě se rozkrajovaly na táckách. Takže opticky bylo jídla stejně.

Tak jsme my kuchařky podaly tácky hladovým krkům a v kuchyni pak čekaly, že děti budou chtít přídavky jako vždy, ale nikdo nechtěl přidat a ani nic nezbylo.

Bramborové svědectví

Když se rozdělovaly úlohy v kuchyni, kdo, kdy a co bude dělat, souhlasila jsem se vším, jen ne se škrábáním brambor. Doma tuto činnost nemůžu dělat vůbec (mám na to babičku), jsem alergik, začnu kýchat a slzet a v rukách mám křeče.

Jenže v ten den dvě kuchařky odjely na nákup, další vařily polívku a ty tři pytle brambor zbyly na mě. Vzala jsem si je ven na lavičku, škrabku, kapesníky a kafe a že aspoň trošku udělám a uvidím, kdo se ke mně přidá. No a tak škrábu a škrábu, jeden pytel, druhý… a pomalu jsem se doškrábala ke konci třetího pytle, to už pomáhaly děti, ani jsem netušila, že bude boj o tři škrabky. Díky Pánu, že mým rukám dal sílu a alergii udržel v klidu.

2x Jana Kašpárková

Video:  “TABOR in Colorado: Debunking the Myths“

Video:  “TABOR in Colorado: Setting the Record Straight on Colorado’s TABOR“

Video:  “TABOR in Colorado – Former Colorado Education Commissioner Sets the Record Straight on TABOR“

Video:  “TABOR in Colorado – Editor of the Colorado Gazette Corrects Lies about TABOR“

Video:  “TABOR in Colorado: Correcting the false claims of the opponents of Question 4“

from the Maine Heritage Policy Center

Ê juventude força do mundo!! O Projeto Tabor está organizando no dia 01/11 mais um dia inteirinho pela jornada da Juventude. Que será na comunidade do Timbú – Eusébio/CE. Todos estão intimados a comparecer será um dia de muitas benção e muita evangelização!

Nosso ministério recebeu a graça de coordenar a ala infantil do evento, isso mesmo estaremos com as crianças! rezem por nós… será um evento maravilhosos! Em breve mais novidades!

History researchers in Denver beware and be aware. As of Oct. 31, the Colorado Historical Society is closing its library for the next two years while they move and reconstruct their museum. Yes, I said two YEARS!! Realization of this closure has thrown my research schedule for my next biography into panic mode. The subject for the next book is Elizabeth Tabor, known around Colorado as “Baby Doe”, the Silver Queen of Leadville.

Although my writing and research schedule has become somewhat tospy-turvy and compressed, I hit paydirt this week when I squeezed in a visit to CHS before the impending closure. The large volume of the Tabor holdings are a two edged sword. The good news is that there is much information to read, view and assimilate. The bad news is that it takes time and organization to sort through the inconsequential, sift down to the nitty-gritty, and identify the really good stuff.

Frustrations slip away when treasures fall into the researchers hands. Fortunately, those moments came and I was transported to a time long ago when our pioneer state was newly formed. A silver king named H.A.W. Tabor put aside his ego and business concerns to scribble words of love to “Lizzie”, the bold script fading but the intent still clear on thin scraps of paper. A voyeur into the past, I was able to interpret these items directly from the source. History was in my hands.

I will miss CHS while they regroup. However, when one door closes, two more usually open. The adventure is just beginning. I am almost grateful that I was forced to scramble into disjointed action. Almost.

Joyce Lohse, 10/23/09

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Republican Study Committee of Colorado
October 15, 2009, http://rscc.us/

RSCC to Hold Hearing On TABOR

(Denver) On October 23, the Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC) will host a hearing on Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) with many of the leading experts, including Dr. Barry Poulson (CU and Independence Institute), Douglas Bruce (author of TABOR and tax-reducation advocate), and Jonathan Williams (director of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council).

Discussion topics will include TABOR’s potential role in Colorado’s economic recovery, the constitutional nature of the measure, the significant benefits it accords the people of Colorado, and a report on the legislature’s Commission on Long-Term Fiscal Stability.

“TABOR has been good for the citizens of Colorado”, said RSCC Chairman, Senator Kevin Lundberg. “This hearing should put those facts on the table and they should help inform members of the legislature for the session that starts next January.“

The RSCC currently has 29 legislative members who are dedicated to a limited and Constitutional role for civil government, free markets and free commerce.

The hearing is open to the public, and will be held at the State Capitol in the Old Supreme Court Chambers. The morning session will take place from 9:00 – 12:00, with the afternoon session from 1:00 – 4:00.

# # #

There’s an interesting post on the Economist blog today about TABOR, and how it has worked in Colorado and how it might, or might not, work in Maine.

Colorado’s TABOR mandated that taxation and state spending could grow no faster than inflation, adjusted for changes in state population, without approval by voter referendum.

Maine is considering implementing a similar system in this fall’s referendums, although there’s pretty vocal opposition.  Being a Mainer with a commitment to state fiscal responsibility, I’m interested in the issue.  How can one legislature restrain spending by future law makers?

The Economist, relying mostly on data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, comes down against TABOR in Maine.  That data is interesting, and it’s strongest points are that a TABOR model forces cuts in education and health spending by the state.  That’s certainly a concern, but I don’t think that’s enough to discourage me from voting for it.

First, education spending has no relation to education outcomes, and anyone pretending it does either doesn’t know anything about the relevant data, or is lying.  I’d encourage everyone to read this book, a great one on how people who don’t have any money have created schools that vastly exceed what richer countries would consider possible.

What’s important is how education money is spent, not how much money is spent on education.  If you spend your entire $200 grocery bill on candy bars, beer and soda your health outcomes will decline.  If you spend $150 on fresh fruits, vegetables and lean proteins, you’ll have much better health outcomes, while saving money.  That’s what TABOR tries to accomplish.

The question becomes, then, can you cut necessary education spending, while retaining vital spending?  The main problem is, public education is so homogenized, that there’s very little evidence to indicate which spending is vital.  We can only draw broad conclusions, like ‘administrative’ spending is less correlated to outcomes than ‘instructional’ spending.  But such measures don’t tell us the whole story.

My sense is that TABOR will force meaningful cuts in spending.  I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  I think it will encourage administrators, voters, and educators to take serious looks at their budgets, and make what they deem to be appropriate cuts.  These cuts will be different for each state or district, and will hopefully, finally give us some real data on outcomes and spending in a causal, not correlated, manner.

The opposition to TABOR needs to answer this one question: How has Colorado continued to grow, while under such an ‘oppressive’ law?

Watch this video, featuring a U. Colorado economist defending the stimulative effects of TABOR on the business climate in the state.  The question, simply put, is this:

Is it better to grab a larger slice of the pie now, for education, child health care, or whatever is politically popular, at the expensive of future prosperity?

Or is it better that everyone take a smaller piece, and make the pie much bigger?

TABOR broadly does the second, although it’s far from perfect.  Encouraging various TABOR-style models in other states across the country will help perfect the model.

The current model in places like Maine and California is that higher debt, lower prosperity, and no appreciable increase in the quality of living hasn’t worked.  Why HAVEN’T my fellow Mainers voted for this already?

Gerald Prante of the Tax Foundation has an interesting take on what TABOR means for the foundations of the American political system.

TABOR, for those unfamiliar with the term, refers to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights provision that imposes exogenous limits on the amount state and local government spending can grow in a state. Similar provisions are being proposed in those two states. But is it necessary?

If government always acted in the best interest of society, TABOR would never be needed. Therefore, the supposed need for TABOR is derived from a lack of trust of the representative democratic system. TABOR is kind of like the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution: the Founding Fathers imposed restrictions on Congress (representatives of the people) from passing laws that restrict speech, establish religion, etc. If the Founding Fathers thought that Congress would always do what’s in society’s best interest, we wouldn’t have needed a 1st Amendment that starts with the phrase “Congress shall make no law…” The Bill of Rights is inherently anti-democratic.

Maybe as a first-best solution (in a world of a purely benevolent government), the First Amendment isn’t the best policy. But it’s probably a second-best solution given that Congress isn’t to be trusted when it comes to actively regulating speech, religion, etc.

And that’s the ultimate question with TABOR. If government was purely benevolent, the first-best solution would be some optimal tax-spending mix. But if government is pre-disposed to get larger and larger (when left to its own devices) and be at a size that is far above optimal, a TABOR has the potential to improve societal well-being. It’s likely not to lead to a perfect outcome, but it shouldn’t be compared to what a perfect, purely benevolent government would do. It should be compared to what an imperfect government is actually doing (and likely to do in the future).

That being said, for TABOR to be successful at improving social well-being, it must be the case that there is a significant amount of waste in the state’s spending. If politicians aren’t interested in maximizing social well-being (which is the necessary condition for TABOR in the first place), then who is to say that the spending cuts they make in response to TABOR are going to be right ones?

If the politicians decide to cut funding for some wasteful project as a result of TABOR, then society wins. Resources that were being wasted are now being put to better use (via lower taxes). But if those politicians, in response to TABOR, cut spending that actually has a high marginal social value (higher than the total marginal cost from taxation), social well-being could be made worse off as a result of TABOR. (Just saying that because government spending / GDP fell that such a policy change is good is nonsense. It depends on what type of spending was cut.)

In summary, TABOR would undoubtedly improve social well-being if politicians cut the least valuable government service in response to TABOR’s enactment. But given that TABOR is necessary because we can’t trust the politicians in the first place to do what is right for society, what is the probability that they are going to cut spending in response to TABOR that has a value to society less than the taxes that TABOR would be cutting? That’s the second-best question for both TABOR opponents and TABOR supporters that is most important, yet rarely asked.

The main point here is one that is rarely brought up but extremely important. All government spending is not created equal. Some government spending is absolutely necessary (i.e. police, fire protection, and military spending), some is beneficial but not critical (education spending), and some is no better than putting money into a pile and burning it (subsidies for failing industries). Unfortunately, it seems that the more useless – or even harmful – the type of spending, the more effective a tool it is for politicians to buy votes from various groups (rather than representing the interests of the individual).

This brings us to the issue of TABOR as an “anti-democratic” measure – which it absolutely is, as is the Bill of Rights. But this anti-democratic nature is by no means a negative. Democracy, by its very nature, is anti-freedom. Democracy is rule by the majority, and if history has taught us anything, it is that a majority will frequently find cause to violate the rights of the minority. Freedom can only mean one thing: individual liberty. The concept of  “collective rights” is an absurdity. No group of people, no matter the number, can possess rights. Only individuals possess rights. And when we are dealing with questions of government spending and taxes, we are dealing with one of the most sacred category of rights: property rights. Any legislative body that has any control over its citizens property (i.e., any legislative body that levies taxes) must be subject to severe anti-democratic measures.

Things are heating up in Colorado politics that’s for sure. Must be that Algore global warming thing. Just don’t mention all that snow, and record low temps. Enjoy!

And just what is it that our friends in Golden are up too?

TABOR Update: Are the proponents of higher taxes and bigger government gearing up for an assault on Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights? You bet they are. Is the Independence Institute ready to educate the uninformed about the many benefits of our tax and spending limitations? Absolutely we are. Anytime and anywhere. In fact, our resident TABOR rock star Barry Poulson has been doing just that.

Read: Barry’s new Issue Paper, “A Fiscal Roadmap for Colorado.” In it, Barry presents some important measures to preserve and strengthen Colorado’s fiscal constitution.

Read: Barry’s recent “TABOR Amendment has Saved Colorado” op-ed in the Denver Post.

Watch: Barry on this episode of Independent Thinking, along with State Representative and TABOR Warrior Kent Lambert.

Listen: Barry on the David Boze radio show, 770 KTTH, Seattle, Washington.

Seeking Technology Advisors: The Independence Institute is currently looking for advisors to assist the organization in the advancement of technological innovation. We are specifically interested in individuals who have market experience in the areas of software engineering, network administration and online marketing, and who share the Independence Institute’s free market and individual liberty philosophy. If you feel that you may fit this role, please apply here.

Charter School Victory: Last week brought a rare bit of uplifting news from the Colorado Supreme Court: The state’s top justices said they weren’t interested in hearing the Boulder Valley School District’s legal challenge to the Charter School Institute (CSI), the special state authorizer for many Colorado charter schools. As noted on our GoBash blog, this was a good decision. Listen as our Education Policy Center director Pam Benigno and CSI chairman Alex Medler discuss the legal victory for families and charter schools on a new iVoices podcast.

Must-Attend Western Slope Event: “Prison spending, Sentencing and the Colorado Budget: How many more prison beds can we afford?” That is the topic of an upcoming panel event in Grand Junction co-sponsored by the Independence Institute and Club 20. The all-star panel includes Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger, Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey, Colorado Department of Corrections Director Ari Zavaras, Colorado Department of Public Safety Director Pete Weir and State Senator Morgan Carroll. That’s October 22 from 4:00 PM-6:30 PM at the Two Rivers Convention Center in Grand Junction. The event is free and will fill up fast, so RSVP quickly to Angeline Roles at (970) 242-3246, or aroles@club20.org.

Save The date: Can you believe it, the Independence Institute turns 25 years young this year!! So save the date and book your seats now for our 25th Annual Founders’ Night Dinner with keynote speaker P.J. O’Rourke…it’s going to be huge! That’s Thursday, November 19, at the Infinity Park International Ballroom in Glendale, CO. Details and RSVP info here. Or you can call Mary at (303) 279-6536, or email her at mary@i2i.org. Hurry, this event is filling up fast.

Must Hear Podcast: The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take another crack at the Second Amendment and hear a case involving Chicago’s gun ban. Over at ivoices.org, Jon Caldara sits down with Second Amendment Project Director Dave Kopel to find out what this might mean for the Second Amendment and earlier Supreme Court decisions. Give a listen here.

Must See TV: Health insurance mandates like in Massachusetts? Or maybe health care rationing like in Oregon? Check out ex-Colorado State Senator Ken Gordon and Health Care Policy Center Director Linda Gorman on Independent Thinking as they join host Jon Caldara to talk about the state of the health care debate in Colorado. Tune in this Friday night at 8:30 pm to KBDI Channel 12; repeated the following Monday afternoon at 1:30 p.m.

Perspective: Colorado’s tax and spending limits are under attack, just as they once were in California. Check out our resident TABOR superstar Barry Poulson in the Colorado Daily newspaper as he asks the all important question: Do we really want to follow California’s disastrous abandonment of fiscal discipline? Barry’s answer is obviously a resounding no.

Check out the whole thing here.

Until next week…

Straight on

Jon Caldara

www.independenceinstitute.org

Native Mainers can be a cantankerous lot.  I have relatives and friends who obstinately refrain from voting in any elections, maintaining that there is, “No sense to it – my vote doesn’t count”.

Surely it will not, if you don’t exercise the privilege.

Still, in some ways I can understand their frustration.  In many ways Maine politics have been taken over by outsiders moving in who were politically active in their previous home states and who are happy to take advantage of the natives’ inclination to live and let live.  This has resulted in the transformation of what used to be a pretty conservative state into a Liberal haven that is certainly far from the atmosphere that I grew up in.

As I recall, there were always a few “busybodies” in any community that people mostly ignored.  Unfortunately, many of the relative newcomers to Maine brought with them the “Nanny State” mentality and proceeded to elect enough of their own to transform a bastion of hard work and self-reliance into the welfare-ridden, special-interest-driven, economic failure that is Maine today.

A preview of the issues contained on the upcoming ballot is a good example of the depths to which a once-proud state has fallen.  Topping the list is a citizen referendum question that attempts to overturn a controversial decision by the State legislature to be one of the few states to authorize homosexual marriages.  Television viewers are bombarded by advertisements from the “for” side insisting that their opponents are attempting to harm school children by portraying them as “different” if their family is anything but the traditional man-woman-child grouping and that this is “not the Maine way” (ironically, these ads are heavily financed by out-of-state activist groups).

The “against” side features ads expressing concern about literature advocating homosexual marriage being presented to grade school children (as has already occurred in both Massachusetts and California), again such ads involving significant financing from sources outside of Maine.

There also several ballot questions involving issues of taxation.  An attempt is being made (again through citizen initiative) to repeal a “reform” of Maine Income Tax law that has been highly touted as an actual decrease in tax for most residents, but has also been construed as a “revenue-neutral” bill (a political-speak paradox, if there ever was one and worthy of the Obama double-talk award, hands down).

A move to repeal the State Excise Tax is also on the ballot, since the public is growing weary of continual bond issue proposals to provide funding for road and bridge maintenance when the automobile excise tax is widely regarded as the means to provide necessary repairs (unfortunately, those proceeds have always been slated for the municipality’s General Fund, to be used at the discretion of the local government).

TABOR (Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights) is again on the list, having been revised in an attempt to mollify opponents convinced that police and fire departments will crumble and children will run naked and hungry in the streets if any attempt to restrain runaway governmental spending is imposed – Colorado seems to have prospered under such restrictions, having had the flexibility to modify its original interpretation of the concept.

All in all, Maine voters have a lot to consider when they go the polls this November.  I am sure that equally important issues will appear on ballots across the nation.

I have spent time enough in other countries to have a feeling of how the public is treated around the world and I will be damned if I can understand the mentality that dictates someone’s refusal to take part in the electoral process and then provides them with the logic to complain about the results.

Democracy in action, I guess.

Anyway, please take the time to cast your votes in November.  Recognize it for the precious gift that it is and be aware that there are those who will rejoice if you choose not to exercise your rights – it makes their goal of running your lives so much easier to attain.

Puteți citi online, sau descarca articole și recenzii din Revista TABOR:

- din Nr. 6/2009, recenzie, Cristian Sonea DESCARCA

- din Nr. 5/2009, articol, Gabriel Memelis, Spațiul-timp al sacrului DESCARCA

- din Nr. 12/2009, articol, Gabriel Memelis&Co., despre realitate DESCARCA

- din Nr. 8/2008, articol, Adrian Papahagi, despre Biblie DESCARCA

- din Nr. 5/2008, articol, Irina Ciubotaru, despre Nicolae Steinhardt DESCARCA

- din Nr. 5/2008, articol, Basarab Nicolescu, despre neo/atesim DESCARCA

- din Nr. 1/2008, articol, Doina Curticapeanu DESCARCA

Lectură plăcută!

A hétvégén Homoródfürdőn voltunk, hogy egy kis társaság egy kicsit (vagy nagyon) okosítsa magát. A kis társaság, a szakkollégium közgazdász klubja (SAKK), azért utazott a Hargita napos oldalára, hogy projektmenedzsmentet tanuljon. Ez a hétvége illeszkedett a tavasszal ( vagy még múlt ősszel már nem is emlékszem) megegyezett téma javaslatok sorába, sőt kettős szerepben is tetszelgett, hisz péntek este még a keresztény vállalkozás lehetőségéről beszélgetünk, szombaton pedig a projektmenedzsment világában próbáltunk maradandót alkotni.

A péntek esti beszélgetés számomra érdekes és hasznos volt, hisz egy olyan témát feszegetett, amit nem biztos, hogy minden egyes sörözés alkalmával előveszünk, ez nem volt más mint a keresztény értékek szerepe és helye az üzleti világban. Néhány dolog megmaradt a fejemben, ezt veletek is megosztom. Az egyik dolog, hogy nem csak gazdasági, hanem erkölcsi válság is van, és a kettő nagyon szorosan összefügg egymással, és talán az erkölcsi válság a nagyobb. Egy olyan környezetben kellene erkölcsösnek lennünk, ahol a partnerek többsége nem az. Ez pedig egy nehéz, de talán eléggé nemes és szép feladat. Számomra egy fontos megjegyzés ami még megmaradt: “Ha valamit nem tudunk megtenni, annak nem megtétele nem bűn, az bűn ha valamit meg tudnánk tenni és nem tesszük.” És szerintem ez a gondolat mentén lehet megpróbálni erkölcsöt csempészni az üzleties világunkba.

A szombati nap az AAM Consulting (www.aamconsulting.ro) tanácsadóinak, Hargitay Tamásnak és Miklós Ervinnek a fennhatósága alatt telt. A délelőtt folyamán betekintést nyertünk a projektmenedzsment gondolatmenetébe és logikájába, délután pedig ezt rögtön gyakorlatba is ültetve két csapat projekteket dolgozott ki a SAKK számára. Ezek a projektek olyan jól sikerültek, hogy rögtön el is kezdjük a gyakorlatba ültetésüket, vagyis közgazdászként elmondhatom, hogy a hétvégébe fektetett pénz megtérülni látszik. Fontosnak tartom kiemelni, hogy a tanulás akkor a legerősebb, ha használjuk is azt amit tanultunk. A gyakorlatba ültetésre két lehetősége is van a résztvevőknek, az egyik az szakkollégium fejlesztése, a másik pedig a saját életünk irányítása vezetése. Mindkettő nagyon sok hasznot hoz, ha jól csináljuk. Mi pedig képesek vagyunk jól csinálni!

A programot egy szolid és kulturált énekléssel fejeztük be, amely éjjel fél ötig tartott.

Remélem, hogy a programról még többet olvashatok a commentek között, hisz a résztvevők is megírják tapasztalataikat, legalábbis ezúton is megkérem őket hogy ÍRJÁTOK MEG! LÉCCI LÉCCI …

A program létrejöttéért köszönetet mondunk az AAM Consulting tanácsadó cégnek, aki a két kiváló munkatársa mellett, anyagi támogatásával is hozzájárult a hétvége megszervezéséhez, Balázs Penksza Ernest Lászlónak, aki a keresztény vállalkozások gondolat foszlányait ültette el a fejünkben és persze Barnikának, aki szállás szervezése mellett nagyon jól megszervezett étkeztetési projekteket vezetett le (előbb jól kiéheztetett minket, majd nagyon finom kajákkal engesztelt ki).

Tánczi

Es ist mal wieder soweit. Was für viele ein alljährliches Highlight darstellt, findet für mich zum zweiten Mal statt: Das Jugendtreffen für Teens in Tabor. Ich freu mich sehr auf das Wochenende und die ganzen Leute, die das Treffen einmalig machen. Mein Platz wird wieder geschützt im Technikbereich sein – ich trainiere schon meinen Zeigefinger für die Powerpoints.

Laura Ingraham (h/t RedState) is proposing a “Ten for ‘10″ agenda, in the hopes that Republicans will find themselves “winning Washington by empowering Americans.” Okay, I’m just going to throw this out there right now as an entirely superficial criticism: The name “Ten for ‘10″ sounds like something that McDonald’s or Domino’s Pizza would cook up. Is this really the slogan that Republicans want to move forward with for the midterm election? It certainly lacks the inspiration of a “Change We Can Believe In” or “Yes We Can,” or even a “It’s Morning Again in America” or “Contract With America.”

But moving beyond the ridiculous name, let’s look at the so-called “meat” of the agenda. It looks like the same quality of stuff that might come out of McDonald’s too.

1) Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR). Limit federal spending growth to the percentage in population growth plus the rate of inflation; provide taxpayers the option of filing a post-card sized return using a low, flat tax rate of 15%.

Is she serious? Well, I guess she is, because conservatives have always been serious about destroying government programs that are overwhelmingly popular — and that’s exactly what this proposal would do. This is not to mention the economic implications of an economy in recession and a federal government unable to spend, which would essentially undo the Keynesian economics that brought us out of the Great Depression.

Why would anyone want to tie spending rates to population growth instead of tying tax rates to income growth? That doesn’t even make sense to me. Maybe it’s a cloak-and-dagger way to get American women to stop using birth control and have a lot more children so the government can spend. In a recession? No problem! We can just all have unprotected sex like rabbits and in nine months the government will be able to spend again. WTF?

2) End Tax-funded abortions. Stop federal payments to Planned Parenthood and prohibit any taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan from covering abortion.

Okay, Laura, can we talk? Are you one of those conservatives who thinks that English should be our official language? If so, I should probably tell you — lean in closer so I can whisper, I wouldn’t want to embarrass you — YOU’RE USING WORDS WRONG! See, when you say that we need to “end” something, that usually means that it has “begun” or, if that’s too big a word for you, “started.” If you’ll step right this way with me over to a little place we on the left like to call — big word here, hun, but bear with me — reality, I can show you that the Hyde amendment, which dates back to 1976 and prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion, is still in place.

But how about that “stop federal payments to Planned Parenthood” thing? You’re right, that does happen, and of course Planned Parenthood provides abortion. But they can’t use taxpayer money for abortion — so where’s it going? Well, for one thing, it’s going toward birth control. We know you guys hate that too, but let’s face it, most Americans are onboard with the idea that women are not babymaking easy-bake ovens. It also goes toward other areas of women’s health, such as breast cancer screening, gynecological services, etc. See this post from conservative blogger and columnist Ashley Herzog on why your unhinged rhetoric about Planned Parenthood is bullshit.

3) Defend American borders. Complete America’s border-protection initiatives using remaining funds from the so-called stimulus bill.

It occurs to me that there is another parallel to fast food chains in this “Ten for ‘10.” Laura’s offering a veritable value menu for various factions of the Republican base. First the fiscal conservatives, then the social conservatives, and now the “nationalists” (yeah, we’ll go with that).

It’s important to remember that a significant portion of the Republican Party — or at least elected Republicans — don’t favor mere “border security.” Many of them, including their last president and their last presidential candidate, favor comprehensive immigration reform. Now that is something that President Obama and Congressional Dems would probably be more than happy to work with them on, except that the unhinged Republican base won’t let it happen. They didn’t let it happen when their own party’s president tried to make it happen.

4) King Dollar. Preserve a strong dollar so that Americans’ savings aren’t wiped out by inflation and the U.S. dollar remains the world’s reserve currency.

Laura’s right, the falling dollar is a problem that needs to be dealt with. What she isn’t telling you is how Republicans would deal with it. They want to stop government stimulus spending, which is exactly the wrong thing to do during a recession or during immediate recovery from a recession. And some of them want to decrease the amount of money printed by the Federal Reserve, which actually has the potential to increase unemployment. Less money in circulation means less consumer spending, which means less corporate revenue, which means fewer jobs. But hasn’t that always been the Republican way, to deal with inflation by taking our jobs?

5) Empower American business. Immediately slash corporate tax rates to 15% and scrap the capital-gains tax altogether.

That’s a fantastic idea. Please pay attention. Laura wants to tie government spending to population growth and she wants to reduce the amount of money in circulation, which means fewer jobs and less funding for government programs that assist us when we’re out of work. But she also wants to cut taxes for corporations and their wealthy CEOs. Are you seeing a pattern here? More money for the wealthy, less money for the government and, more significantly, for you, and me. That’s their agenda for 2010.

6) Defend America. Strengthen America to defend our homeland and fully fund an operational, layered missile-defense system.

First, could she possibly vague that first part up a bit for us? “Strengthen America to defend our homeland?” What the hell does that mean, exactly?

The missile defense system. That’s a direct shot at the Obama administration, which decided for a variety of reasons — not the least of which was spending considerations — that a mobile missile defense system located outside Eastern Europe would be preferable to a fixed system inside Eastern Europe. We are already reaping the dividends of this new policy, as the ice wall that has existed between the U.S. and Russia is beginning to thaw and the Russians are starting to get more aggressive toward Iran.

7) Statism Exit Plan. De-fund czars; immediately cease bailout payments to failed companies; ban future bailouts.

I’m all for de-funding the czars, once the fantasy Republican Congress that Laura is salivating over passes a resolution acknowledging that it was George W. Bush who started the czar trend and apologizing for their party’s complicity in setting that precedent. Then they can de-fund the czars.

I’m also for stricter bailout rules, but it is insanity to deprive the government of any power whatsoever to bailout banks, companies, etc., that are too big to fail. Nobody liked the bank bailouts, but where would we be right now economically had the government been unable to bail them out? So yes, by all means, tighter restrictions on bailouts. But banning them altogether? That’s just shameless populist pandering that looks good on the surface but could ultimately destroy our economy. But then again, that’s what Republicans do best.

8 ) End Generational Theft. As few believe America’s entitlement programs will be able to pay benefits for future generations, provide younger workers the choice of diverting payroll/Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts.

Oh Laura! You really want to go here again? Ask George W. Bush how this went for him and then ask yourself: Do you really want to go here again?

It has been well established by now that Americans young and old are opposed to this kind of “Social Security reform” that will actually rip security from their hands once it comes time for them to retire. But Laura’s right again, many believe that Social Security will become insolvent because eventually it will. So here’s a thought: Raise income taxes on the wealthy and use some of that revenue to bolster Social Security. Yeah, I said it. Let’s tell the wealthiest 10% who control half the country’s wealth that they are going to have some responsibility for society and make them fill the Social Security gap.

We do need Social Security reform, but not the kind Laura’s talking about. We need to end our total reliance on regressive payroll taxes and demand that the wealthiest members of our society responsibly contribute to our society in proportion to their wealth.

9) Restore America’s System of Justice. Introduce penalties for frivolous lawsuits, where those who launch unsuccessful lawsuits are liable for the defendants’ legal bills.

In principle, I’m not opposed to lawsuit reform, but the devil is usually in the details. I don’t think that we should have across the board plaintiff liability for unsuccessful lawsuits, though. There are a number of reasons why a lawsuit might fail, and it should be left to the discretion of judges and/or juries to decide whether or not plaintiffs should be held responsible for defendants’ legal bills.

I do find it amusing that Laura thinks this is all we need to do to “restore America’s system of justice.” I was thinking maybe we should, you know, stop torturing foreign prisoners and restore their habeas corpus rights. But she’s totally right, lawsuits against McDonald’s are way more grievous injustices.

10) American Energy Independence. All-of-the-Above strategy that embraces alternatives, expands and accelerates exploration and production of oil and natural gas, and jumpstarts dramatic increases in nuclear power.

Y’know, I’m just not going to do this again. This was John McCain’s broken record throughout his campaign and he lost the election. The American people have spoken about your emphasis on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and guess what? They said no. Get over it.

Yeah, “Ten for ‘10″ really sounds like a fast food slogan. But don’t be fooled, this is typical Republican fare — red meat for their extremist base and crumbs for the rest of the American people (that is, the majority). This agenda would take our jobs, hinder popular and vital programs, wreck our economy, and hand out more money to the wealthiest few. It would de-fund basic women’s health services like birth control, breast cancer screening, and gynecological services. “Ten for ‘10″ would launch a war of attition against undocumented workers, while alienating a potential ally and strengthening the position of one of our greatest enemies.

If all of this sounds a lot like the eight years of the Bush administration, it should. Nothing much has changed in the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan’s election almost thirty years ago. They just dress the same agenda up in different slogans, and this time the slogan happens to sound like a cheap value menu. This particular value menu will end up costing America a lot more than the Laura Ingraham and other Republicans are letting on. But hey, maybe we’ll be able to get some freedom fries with that.