Gov Candidates Clarify Ideas on Energy Prices, Budget Gap, Jobs, Basic Economic Principles

Susana Martinez

From Capitol Report/New Mexico.com - Susana Martinez says she’ll put a moratorium on any cap and trade program; Diane Denish says she will weigh “options” The two candidates for governor appeared separately at the annual New Mexico Oil and Gas Association convention in Santa Fe on Monday (Oct. 4). While Democrat Diane Denish and Republican Susana Martinez have each come out against New Mexico taking part in a cap and trade program, Martinez came out with a specific plan for what she would do if the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) passes one or both cap and trade proposals before it.

Diane Denish

Martinez says she would place an immediate moratorium on any cap and trade program and then went further — saying she would place a moratorium on Pit Rule 17. Denish, on the other hand, said she would “look at all the options” but did not get specific. Read and listen here:

Gov Candidates Clarify Ideas on Energy Prices, Budget Gap, Jobs, Basic Economic Principles

2010: Year of the missing candidate

From the Politico.com - by Jonathon Martin - With a month left until the midterm elections, there is something noticeably absent from some key statewide races: the candidates. They’re ducking public events, refusing to publicize the ones they do hold and skipping debates and national TV interviews altogether – out of fear of a gotcha moment that will come back to haunt them. It’s mostly, but not entirely, a Republican phenomenon. In some cases, a tea-party-oriented candidate has made a plain calculation that a one-day, process story about an absence from the campaign trail or a refusal to debate is less damaging than the captured-on-tape gaffe the candidate could make when facing reporters. As of Friday, Colorado Republican Senate hopeful Ken Buck had gone nine consecutive days without holding a public event and acknowledged to The Denver Post that he’s more mindful now that he’s constantly being recorded by the ubiquitous 'trackers' being used by both sides. (With the fundraising quarter now done, however, he’s planning a more robust schedule for October.) Read more

2010: Year of the missing candidate

Williams: Who Rules the Tea Party?

Armstrong Williams

From Townhall.com - Who rules the tea party? Is it Sarah Palin and her lunch pail brand of God, guns and the Constitution? Is it Dick Armey, the former House majority leader who danced to his own tune and was the mastermind behind the GOP’s Contract with America? Or is the tea party led by a few private mega-funders — a George Soros clan of the conservative movement? One thing is certain, liberals have no idea who their opponent is, and they and the mainstream media are desperate to find out. Several months ago, when the tea party crusade hit its stride with a Kentucky primary win by Rand Paul to succeed retiring Sen. Jim Bunning, a Republican, the Left went out of its way to link Mr. Paul as the puppet behind a larger Republican machine. Democrat operatives quickly labeled Mr. Paul and his style of politics as wholly indicative of what the GOP had become. As predicted, Republicans had reverted to their old-school style of hate politics, the storyline went, making this November a clear choice between “policies of the past” versus the future. Read more here:

Williams: Who Rules the Tea Party?

Sowell - Red Herring Politics Part II

Thomas Sowell

From Townhall.com Some of the longest-serving members of Congress, whose party has overwhelming majorities in both houses, are having far closer election races than they are used to. These include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, not to mention 18-year veteran Senator Barbara Boxer. Despite their long records, they seem to want to talk about everything except their records. They could tell us why they voted for ObamaCare and huge stimulus bills, without time enough to read them. Instead, they have come up with enough red herrings to stock an aquarium. One of the big distracting talking points is that the Republicans in Congress have been "the party of No." Given the overwhelming majorities of the Democrats in both houses, in addition to their control of the White House, whether the Republicans said "yes," "no" or "maybe" could not stop the Democrats from doing anything they wanted to do. Read more here:

Sowell - Red Herring Politics Part II

Williams: Exploiting Economic Ignorance

Walter Williams

From Townhall.com - One of President Obama's campaign promises was not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans. So here's my question: If there's a corporate tax increase either in the form of "cap and trade" or income tax, does it turn out to be a middle-class tax increase? Most people would say no but let's look at it. There's a whole subject area in economics known as tax incidence -- namely, who bears the burden of a tax? The first thing that should be recognized is that the burden of a tax is not necessarily borne by the party upon whom it is levied. That is, for example, if a sales tax is levied on gasoline retailers, they don't bear the full burden of the tax. Part of it is shifted to customers in the form of higher gasoline prices. Suppose your local politician tells you, as a homeowner, "I'm not going to raise taxes on you! I'm going to raise taxes on your land." You'd probably tell him that he's an idiot because land does not pay taxes; only people pay taxes. That means a tax on your land is a tax on you. You say, "Williams, that's pretty elementary, isn't it?" Not quite. read more here:

Williams: Exploiting Economic Ignorance

Corn: Is Jon Stewart Good for Republicans

David Corn

Is Jon Stewart good for the Republicans? Anyone who doesn't live in a house with rotary phones and no cable knows that the host of "The Daily Show" is organizing a Rally to Restore Sanity in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 30. (The day before Halloween -- a coincidence? I think not.) Stewart's battle cry is simple: "We're looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn't be the only ones that get heard." Though he doesn't call it such, this demonstration is a response to angry Tea Party gatherings of the past year or so and Glenn Beck's whatever-it-was in Washington on Aug. 28. And as part of the joke -- I mean, strategic plan -- Stephen Colbert will be holding a "Keep Fear Alive" counter-march on the same day. Read more here:

Corn: Is Jon Stewart Good for Republicans

As Newspapers Inhale Cash From Medical Marijuana Ads, NY Times Skips Usual Ethics Questions

From NewsBusters.com - by Clay Waters - Medical marijuana is an evergreen (pardon the pun) topic for alternative weeklies, along with the return of vinyl records. The recent loosening of federal regulations under Obama have pushed the issue into the mainstream, with one surprising side effect -- a huge boost in ad sales for alternative papers and even some mainstream dailies, as medical marijuana businesses like "Happy Buddah" and "High Mike's" attempt to entice customers, er, patients. But the New York Times, usually hypersensitive to how corporate advertising affects coverage of industry-related issues, didn't spot any potential conflicts in this case, even as a newspaper executive lamented how a tightening of a state law on medical marijuana could adversely affect his newspaper ad sales. Reporter Jeremy Peters' report from Colorado Springs, "New Fuel for Local Papers: Ads for Medical Marijuana," on Tuesday's front page, failed to question whether such massive advertising for a controversial product could influence a newspaper's journalism. By comparison, the Times banned tobacco cigarette ads from its pages in 1999, and tobacco companies have long been prohibited from advertising their products on television and radio. When it hit the streets here last week, the latest issue of ReLeaf, a pullout supplement to The Colorado Springs Independent devoted to medical marijuana, landed with a satisfying thud. A full-page ad in ReLeaf costs about $1,100, making the publication a cash cow for The Independent, which has used its bounty from medical marijuana ads this year to hire one new reporter and promote three staff members to full time. Read more

As Newspapers Inhale Cash From Medical Marijuana Ads, NY Times Skips Usual Ethics Questions

Congress Can't Repeal Economics

By John Stossel - It's raining! I don't like it! Why hasn't Congress passed the Good Weather Act and the Everybody Happy Act? Sound dumb? Why is it any dumber than a law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which promised to cover more for less money? When Obamacare was debated, we free-market advocates insisted that no matter what the president promised, the laws of economics cannot be repealed. Our opponents in effect answered, "Yes, we can." Well, Obamacare has barely started taking effect, and the evidence is already rolling in. I hate to say we told them so, but ... we told them so. The laws of economics have struck back. Health insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne will stop writing policies for all children. Why? Because Obamacare requires that they insure already sick children for the same price as well children. That sounds compassionate, but -- in case Obamacare fanatics haven't noticed -- sick children need more medical care. Insurance is about risk, and already sick children are 100 percent certain to be sick when their coverage begins. So if the government mandates that insurance companies cover sick children at the lower well-children price, insurers will quit the market rather than sandbag their shareholders. This is not callousness -- it's fiduciary responsibility. Insurance companies are not charities. So, thanks to the compassionate Congress and president, parents of sick children will be saved from expensive insurance -- by being unable to obtain any insurance! That's how government compassion works. Read more

Congress Can't Repeal Economics

Ranchers not just crying wolf

From the Westerner - Dick Thoman, a fourth-generation sheep rancher in Wyoming, woke up one morning and found 42 of his sheep bloody and dead on the open range. They had been slaughtered by wolves. The wolves didn't kill only what they needed to survive, and they didn't kill because they were hungry, as some like to claim. They killed for sport; they killed because that's what wolves do. Not one of the sheep had been eaten. "Just killed 'em and left 'em," says Thoman. Thoman's summer range borders Yellowstone. He loses 300 to 400 sheep a year to wolves, or about 10 percent of his herd. Why would they chase wild game in the park for hours on end when they can find them all bunched up and defenseless on adjacent ranches? It's like a grocery store on hooves. Did anybody not see that coming? "They've slaughtered us since they brought them back," Thoman says. "It's terrible." This doesn't even take into account Thoman's other losses. With wolves around, sheep are nervous. Imagine having a terrorist loose in the neighborhood each night, trying to get into your house to kill you. The sheep don't sleep or eat as well. "We probably lost 15 pounds per lamb over the summer, and at a dollar a pound and over 3,000 lambs, that adds up," says Thoman...more

Ranchers not just crying wolf

ZUBRIN: Tax tyranny is upon us

From the Washington Times - by Robert Zubrin - This is the matter of 1099 tyranny. You see, while he was ramming through the health care bill, Harry Reid hid in its 2,500 pages of gibberish a provision requiring all businesses - big, small and even sole proprietorships - to file a 1099 form reporting every purchase of $600 or more from every vendor - including small purchases adding up to $600 or more. This bill will not bring the federal government any tax revenue. Rather, by adding to the overhead of companies big and small, it will take away from their bottom line and reduce the taxes they are able to pay accordingly. In my case, I will have to hire a person for $50,000 per year to do nothing but try to obtain and verify the information of such forms. That will cost the federal government $12,000 in lost taxes. But it gets worse. Because there is no fundamental difference between a sole proprietorship and any private person, there is no reason why this provision, if accepted, should not be applied to every taxpayer. Consider: Do you know how much you spent at your local grocery store last year? Certainly more than $600. But how much exactly? What, you don't know? You will need to know, or under this law, you would commit tax fraud by failing to report accurately the exact amount you spent at every store, hotel, gas station, airline, etc., at which you spent $600 over the course of the year. You would need to get a 1099 from each of them to include in your tax return. If you failed to do so, you could be subject to prosecution. Read more

ZUBRIN: Tax tyranny is upon us