They are critical votes., as the March 5 Denver Post relates

President Barack Obama has laid out the path for Democrats’ last-ditch effort to save health care reform, and despite some relief among lawmakers that a final strategy is set, it’s almost certainly headed for a white-knuckle finish.

The sticky choices faced by Democratic Reps. Betsy Markey of Fort Collins and Diana DeGette of Denver show the hurdles confronting House leaders as they try to wrangle the votes to approve the Senate version of the bill, then fix key elements through a maneuver known as reconciliation. …

As co-chair of the Pro Choice Caucus and a fierce abortion-rights advocate, DeGette is facing strong pressure from national groups not to approve a health care bill with the current language restricting insurance coverage of abortion contained in the Senate bill — but the reconciliation process allows no clear way to change it. …

Markey, who declined requests to be interviewed for this story, is a vulnerable Democrat who last year voted against a reform bill viewed skeptically by moderates and conservatives in her Republican-leaning district.

But that vote has cost her dearly with party loyalists back home, and she’s now squeezed between the unpleasant prospect of alienating either her base Democratic voters or the independents she’ll need in a tough 2010 fight.

Read the rest of the article: Markey, DeGette in middle of health care reform quagmire.

Contact Betsy Markey here.  Contact Diana DeGette here.

President Obama finally made it official yesterday:  he wants Congress to ignore Senate rules – and the American people – and use a parliamentary trick called “reconciliation” to pass his health care takeover legislation.  Fortunately, there’s a catch: before the Senate can use reconciliation to force through Obama’s tweaks, the House would have to pass the Senate health care bill.  And we must stop them.

In his remarks the president demanded that Congress cave in and vote “in the next few weeks.”

The key vote will now occur in the House of Representatives – perhaps within 10 to 12 days – and we have to win it.  That’s because it’s impossible for the Senate to make changes via reconciliation until after the Senate bill has passed the House.  Of course, once the Senate bill passes the House, President Obama will sign it and it will become the law of the land – whether or not the reconciliation trick makes some changes around the edges. …

I’m asking you to take 3 steps.

1. Call and email your member of Congress in the next 24 hours.  CLICK HERE to email your member, and CLICK HERE to call your member; – based on your zip code we can provide the right information for your representative.  Tell them to vote NO on the corrupt, big government Senate health care takeover bill and tell them Americans do not want this parliamentary trick called “reconciliation.”

2.  Forward this email to your friends, family, co-workers, and fellow activists across the nation asking them to do the same thing.  They may not know how much the House vote matters. Your friends and family need to hear from someone they know and trust that now is a crucial time on health care and protecting our freedoms.

3.  Commit to being a part of the ”Honk Against the Health Care Takeover” event on March 16.  Here’s how it will work.  On March 16 at 12 noon your time, we’re asking you to drive to your nearest congressional district office CLICK HERE FOR THE OFFICE NEAREST YOU and drive around the office for at least 15 minutes occasionally honking your horn. Our goal is to have Americans across the nation telling the politicians to keep their hands off our health care through this “Honk Against the Health Care Takeover” effort.

Read the whole post: The biggest health care vote yet.

HB 1193 requires out-of-state online retailers to collect sales tax from Colorado customers if those businesses have a relationship with a local “affiliate.” …

Democratic lawmakers are sleepwalking toward approval of a bill that could have the state dunning tens of thousands of Coloradans for unpaid sales tax on Internet purchases with retailers such as Amazon. Now won’t that be a popular election-year gift to voters?

…  For any on the fence, let me offer a short list of the bill’s deficiencies.

* It is almost certain to put Coloradans out of work.

* It won’t produce nearly the promised $4.7 million in tax revenue for the next fiscal year.

* It could result in the state harassing citizens for often paltry sums that most didn’t even know they officially owed – and which almost no one actually pays.

Carroll writes that “[f]our House Democrats did break ranks to oppose House Bill 1193, which survived by just a single vote in its journey to the Senate.”  Read the whole article: Amazon buyers, beware: State has it in for you.

Also see this post from ReveNews: Overstock Threatens to Terminate Colorado Affiliates Over Pending Legislation.

And don’t forget to contact your Colorado state senator!

“Barack Obama ran an unprecedented Presidential campaign – utilizing the power of design to help secure the seat of the President of the United States of America. However, his iconic emblem, the ever present “O”, holds more power than even Obama knows. Bill Whittle points out the dangers of branding an ideology with an icon and how, perhaps, the powerful symbol will be used against the very man it built up.”

(via Reason.tv)

The president isn’t a benevolent father-protector, charged with the welfare of all creatures great and small — and educators do kids a great disservice if they help promote such a childish notion. Still less was he supposed to be the educator in chief, presiding over a centralized education bureaucracy, handing out Title X grants (with strings attached) and falsely promising that no child will be left behind. The framers thought of the president as a mere constitutional officer, whose main job is taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. Students — and presidents — could stand to learn a lot more about how far we’ve drifted from that ideal.

Read his whole op-ed, Hey, Mr. President, Leave Those Kids Alone, and check out more criticism side-by-side with Obama’s speech to kids in school.

Do you want politicians to put you “in it together” with others, or would you prefer to reserve that choice for yourself?

Last Tuesday guest editor Clay Evans wrote that one of President-elect Obama’s “great challenges” will be to “bring us together.” While defending Social Security, Obama himself has written that we “need to reclaim the idea that in this country, we’re all in it together. That is America’s very promise…”

When a charismatic speaker says this, it can make you feel hope, that you’re part of a community, or inspire you to voluntarily cooperate with others to achieve great things. Or such talk could make you suspicious and skeptical, as you might react to a snake-oil salesman or an aspiring cult leader. In either case, you can choose either to participate or walk away.

But you cannot walk away from an elected politicians who claim “we’re all in it together.” Politicians “bring people together” with legislation. If you peacefully refuse to cooperate with such legislated “togetherness,” you’re a criminal and can end up in prison. For example, if you think Social Security <a title="nice political cartoon” href=”http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/medicare-explained/”>resembles investing with Bernie Madoff, try opting out. When politicians legislate how “we’re all in it together,” law enforcement can punish us for not cooperating with their wishes.

Instead, politicians should promote policies that respect individual rights. That is, our right to associate with, or be “together” with, others on a peaceful and voluntary basis. Respect for individual rights: this should be America’s promise.

[pdf as published in print edition]

A stock market gaining in confidence shot higher for a second straight session Monday as investors bet that President-elect Barack Obama’s plans to increase infrastructure spending will help lift the economy back to health. The major market indexes jumped more than 3 percent, and the Dow Jones industrials’ nearly 300 point advance gave the blue chips their highest close in a month.

Obama’s plan calls for the largest U.S. public works spending program since the creation of the interstate highway system a half-century ago. That could bolster the economy by putting thousands of people to work building schools and other construction projects.

His weekend announcement gave a lift to a range of companies, from machinery makers to materials producers. Alcoa Inc., the world’s third-largest aluminum producer, surged 18 percent on the news; while heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. jumped 11 percent.

From what I can tell, the only support for the claim is a quote by someone in the financial sector:

I think people recognize that the government is going to throw everything that they can at this market, everything they can at the economy to make it work,” said James Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group.

This says nothing.  Where’s the evidence that Obama’s “weekend announcement gave a lift to a range of companies”?  I am not saying that it did not, but where’s the evidence?  Did they do a survey of people who bought stock today?  Did they collect any information?

Worse, the AP story says Obama’s policies “could bolster the economy.”  But what about mentioning the possible negative results of Obama’s policies, as the New York Times mentions?  (For more on this, see here.)

Even when a survey of journalists shows that they do lean left relative to the rest of the country, this is no excuse for not substantiating claims.

On a lighter note, check out this screenshot from Yahoo!, which shows an image of pork next to the article about Obama’s proposal economic policies.

After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, “Why did we lose?”

I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms – positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008. I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans” embrace of the religious “social conservative” agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

Read the rest here.