Update to ‘Both Ways Betsy’ where I criticized Congresswoman Betsy Markey for her latest TV ads.

Referring to the 2008 TARP bailout legislation,  Markey claims in her ad, “Maybe it’s my 20 years as a small-business owner, but these Wall Street bailouts really offend me… No one ever gave me a bailout.”

I reminded readers of the other bailouts that didn’t offend her quite so much because she voted for them. That’s bad enough, but now I find out (courtesy of a reader) that during the 2008 campaign Markey criticized then current Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave for — guess what? That’s right, opposing the TARP bailout — the bailout that she finds so offensive.

In a Wall Street Journal article dated September 24, 2008, Musgrave stood up to the president (and many others in her own party) and opposed TARP. She said at the time:

For years, Americans on Main Street have heard about the lavish excesses of Wall Street. We heard about their mansions, exotic cars and, above all, record profits… Now, the party is over, and the same bankers are asking working families across the country to bear the consequences of their excess and greed. I refuse to burden families already struggling with soaring energy and food prices with bailing out investment banks that made bad decisions.

The WSJ also spoke with Markey who scolded Musgrave, calling her opposition to TARP a “hasty move.”

Ms. Markey called her opponent’s statement a “hasty move” that demonstrated her inability to cooperate on important issues in Washington. ‘A lot of experts are still looking at options, and my opponent has already made up her mind’ she said in an interview Tuesday. Ms. Markey added that, like many in Congress, she wanted changes to the original Treasury Department proposal, such as requiring any rescue bill to include greater market regulation and to protect taxpayer money.

Maybe Markey wouldn’t have voted for the original TARP bailout but not because bailouts “offend” her but because it didn’t go far enough. Let’s send Congresswoman Markey a new pair of flip-flops, she is wearing out her current pair at a rapid pace.

Below is my latest column for Liberty Ink Journal headquartered here in Northern Colorado. Regular listeners to my show and readers of this blog will recognize my scathing critique of National Popular Vote, which threatens our republic. I’ve been warning about this movement for years and now the threat is bigger than ever. Thank you for indulging me again as I champion the Electoral College.

National Popular Vote threatens our republic

By Amy Oliver Cooke

Few things are more irritating than Americans mistakenly labeling our county a “democracy” rather than a constitutional republic. The difference between the two is crucial. In a democracy, the majority rules, often at the expense of minority rights. In a republic, power is vested in individuals and is exercised through their elected representatives.

Sadly, many citizens simply don’t know the difference, probably because they have never been taught. But what about those who do know the difference, yet still make the same claim that we are a “democracy”? It’s more than irritating; it’s dangerous.

In a commencement address at Hampton University President Barack Obama said information has become “a distraction, a diversion” that puts pressure on “our democracy.”

Besides his obvious contempt for the first amendment, President Obama’s claim that we are a “democracy” is frightening because as a former constitutional law professor and someone who sworn to protect the constitution certainly he should know better. This was not just a slip of the tongue.

The “democracy” drumbeat from the Left is a calculated misunderstanding and vital to the supporters of a dangerous movement called National Popular Vote (NPV).

NPV is a wealthy, California-based group with a long, bitter memory of the 2000 presidential election. They are dedicated to destroying the Electoral College, one of the most brilliant and least understood institutions contained within the Constitution.

NPV would replace the current winner-take-all electoral system in most states with a nation-wide, popular vote compact. According to Save Our States, a bi-partisan defender of the Electoral College, NPV would require states “to ignore the result within their state and instead give all of their electoral votes to the candidate winning the most votes nationwide.” (In full disclosure, I am an active contributor to Save Our States.) When NPV is passed in enough states to add up to 270 electoral votes, the amount needed to win the presidency, the compact will go into effect.

NPV has no requirement for a majority vote or a provision for a runoff. To add insult to electoral injury, an NPV state conceivably could be forced to throw its electors behind a candidate that doesn’t even appear on its ballot.

Because the Constitution gives state legislatures the authority to decide how to award electors, NPV proponents can bypass the Constitution by cleverly introducing legislation in a number of state houses. Colorado has considered NPV legislation twice, once in 2007 and another time in 2009. Grassroots activism helped defeat it both times. (Colorado voters also soundly defeated a 2004 ballot measure to change how the state awards its electors from winner-take-all to a percentage of popular vote.)

To support NPV, one must believe the misguided notion that the United States is a democracy. If we were, the will of the states such as New York, California, New Jersey and Illinois could be thrust upon states like Colorado, Kansas, Utah, Tennessee and Kentucky.

Our Founding Fathers knew that states had different interests and did not want to see the desires of more populated states forced upon smaller ones. Thus, they created the Electoral College. The Electoral College forces presidential candidates and their supporters to campaign in a wide variety of areas, rather than concentrating on urban centers with large populations.

In the 2000 presidential election, the Electoral College did exactly what the Founding Fathers designed it to do. It didn’t matter that Al Gore had a popular vote plurality of less than one-half of one percent. (Thanks in part to the votes of California’s illegal aliens) It didn’t matter that Gore won the popular vote in both California and New York by huge percentages. To be president, he had to win a majority of the electoral votes, which means he had to win the popular vote in a wide variety of states.

If Gore had been able to win even a single southern or border state–such as his “home” state of Tennessee or Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, he would have been President. George W. Bush won the popular vote in 30 states, therefore giving him the necessary number of electoral votes to win the presidency. Middle America was able to avoid the tyranny of the East and West Coasts.

The Electoral College works, which is why it has not been changed in more than 200 years. It demonstrates our Founding Fathers’ commitment to the protection of minority rights, and the diverse interests of the entire nation–not just the biggest cities or states.

The brilliance of the Electoral College is lost on NPV proponents including Colorado’s Democrat party, which includes support for NPV and the abolition of the Electoral College in its party platform.

NPV does enjoy success in a few states. According to its Web site, four states – Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland – with 61 electoral votes collectively have enacted the bill. It’s also making its way through state legislatures in both New York and Massachusetts. Together these two states have 43 electoral votes. If NPV is successful in both Massachusetts and New York, that’s 104 electoral votes, nearly 40 percent of what NPV needs to enact the popular vote compact – with just 6 states.

NPV is dangerous to our constitutional republic. Without the Electoral College, all a candidate has to do is win a plurality of the popular vote, even if that plurality comes mainly from a handful of mega-cities on the coasts. Under this scenario states like Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas can only watch as the East and West Coasts anoint our next president.

Amy Oliver Cooke is host of the Amy Oliver Show (www.amyolivershow.com) on 1310 KFKA. She is also a contributor to Save Our States www.SaveOurStates.com.

That’s the nickname that my friends at Complete Colorado have hung on freshman Democrat Congresswoman Betsy Markey.  And it seems appropriate. An article from The Hill and featured on Complete Colorado describes Markey’s new ad campaign where she pretends to be offended with congressional approval of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, a.k.a. TARP.  In fact she claims:

Maybe it’s my 20 years as a small-business owner, but these Wall Street bailouts really offend me… No one ever gave me a bailout.

Bailout is just another word for cop-out…And here in Colorado, that’s not how we do business.

Oh please. Does she honestly expect me or any other voter in the 4th CD to believe that she would have stood up to Nancy Pelosi and voted “No”? Since the vote was taken in October 2008, before she was in Congress, there is no way to know how she would have voted. I guess we are supposed to take her at her word. As someone who has kept track of her voting record, I would bet dollars to donuts that Markey, who went against the wishes of her constituents and with Pelosi on Obamacare, cap and trade, card check and the stimulus, would have voted yes.

Markey has yet to prove that she has or can challenge her party’s leadership. She may be a blue dog democrat, but she’s one with all bark and no bite.

On my radio show today GOP gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes said his “short list” for Lt. Governor includes someone from Weld County with both executive experience in the Governor’s mansion and legislative experience as an elected member of the Colorado General Assembly.  Face the State has speculated that it might be either Senator Kevin Lundberg or Senator Scott Renfroe.  He wouldn’t say whether he was considering a man or a woman.

Neither Lundberg nor Renfroe has executive experience.

So who does? I thought of Greeley Mayor Tom Norton who served as CDOT director under Governor Bill Owens and was president of the Colorado State Senate during the 1990s.  But that was really just a wild guess — one that I don’t think is accurate.

A listener provided a great guess.  Someone who endorsed Dan Maes well before Scott McInnis’ “water” gate scandal. Someone with both executive experience as the head of DORA and legislative experience as the elected representative from HD 50.  I’m embarrassed that I didn’t think of this person.  My apologies to my friend Tambor Williams, who would make an excellent Lt. Governor.

Tambor most recently appeared on my show to explain her role on the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.

Tambor would be a great choice, but then I am biased because I think Tambor would also make a great Governor. Remember this is all just speculation. Maes will make his announcement tomorrow. Until then, have fun speculating.

The term “jobless recovery” always has left me confused.  In fact, I’ve pondered the term on my show on more than one occasion. I don’t claim to be an economist but words should mean something.  So, exactly how can we be in a “recovery” when unemployment remains high — especially considering how much of our children’s money we have spent in a feeble attempt to keep unemployment below 8 percent as Christina Romer and the Obama administration promised?

Fortunately columnist Al Lewis clarifies for everyone. First he explains the prevailing description of our current economic situation:

After trillions of dollars worth of Federal Reserve maneuvers and government-stimulus spending, it became more benignly known as “the recovery.”

It’s since been called the fragile recovery, the sluggish recovery and even the jobless recovery. With the national debt at staggering levels, you could even call it the expensive recovery. But it’s always the recovery. Never, the recession.

Just last week, Fed officials actually began calling it the “slowed” recovery.

Refreshingly Lewis doesn’t buy the term “recovery” and calls a spade a spade:

To call it any kind of a recovery is profoundly blinding…

Why?

We rarely hear from unemployed economists, because economists work for banks, and banks get bailouts, or they work for governments that tax and print money. If more economists got pink slips, we’d likely hear more about the damage that double-digit unemployment does to an economy over an extended period of time.

As Lewis puts it, we never really recovered in the first place.

Courage Classic 2010

In a video appearance before the Western States Transportation Alliance, Congresswoman Betsy Markey “spends the whole beginning of this greeting talking about potential taxes to pay for spending in a surface transportation bill” reports Who Said You Said, which posted the video.

Markey’s implication that taxpayers aren’t sending enough of their money to Washington begs a couple of questions. First, what has Washington been doing with the money it already has? Let me answer that in part.  A new project of mine, Mothers Against Debt (check out MAD on FaceBook too), reported that the Federal Highway Administration gave Arizona $1.25 million to build special squirrel bridges “so they don’t end up on the menu at the road kill cafe.”

Second, the federal government will spend roughly $3.7 trillion this fiscal year. If infrastructure is a proper function of government, why isn’t Washington prioritizing its budget so that infrastructure gets funded appropriately?  Let me answer that one too, because roads and bridges aren’t a priority for those currently in power.

So let’s clarify all this.  Squirrels are a higher priority than drivers and taxpayers. No wonder our children’s national debt is more than $13 trillion.

It seems that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and Democrat gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper can’t get along.

First Mayor Hickenlooper embraced global warming and former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, while Candidate Hick doesn’t share the same enthusiasm for either.

Candidate Hick criticized Governor Bill Ritter’s new oil and gas regulations until part of his Mayor Hick base — the Eco-Left — got mad. Now he is backtracking. Oh, wait, Hick’s clarifying.

And now, Todd Shepherd of Complete Colorado reveals that Mayor Hick supported the proposed “crash tax” for any visitor who has an at-fault accident within the city limits of Denver:

Hickenlooper’s office again defended the idea, this time through spokesman Eric Brown, and this time a little more forcefully. “We support it. This ordinance follows through on part of the 2010 budget presented to and approved by City Council last year,” Brown told the Denver Daily News.

Yet Candidate Hick has a different take as Todd summarizes:

“We support it,” the Mayor’s office said unequivocally.  And even though John Hickenlooper sees a horrible economic injustice of the fact that good drivers subsidize the accident response costs for bad drivers, and even though he needed to right the injustice of other kids in the sandbox not playing fair (never mind the fact THOSE districts may have been concerned about the injustice of good drivers subsidizing the bad), the Mayor still says, “I don’t think we’re terribly wedded to it one way or the other.”

Hick also says, if he is elected Governor, he will sign legislation banning crash taxes.

Let’s get this straight.  Mayor Hick wants the crash tax because Denver spent too much of your money and need the cash to help plug the $100 million budget shortfall.  Candidate Hick knows the crash tax wars won’t play well statewide on the campaign trail so he isn’t “wedded to it one way or the other.” And he would be willing to ban them if elected.

Confused? Understandable.  So is Hick.

Every year I watch the Greeley Stampede Independence Day Parade. Usually, I am half of the broadcast team for 1310 KFKA. This year, Scooter McGee took my place so I could simply enjoy the parade from the comfort of the mobile studio. Because I didn’t have to broadcast, it afforded me the great luxury of observing the crowd as onlookers watched the parade. And as I have done for the last few years, I provide my parade observations:

First, it was held on Saturday, July 3, to accommodate Sunday religious services, which I think is a kind gesture but it’s odd having the 4th of July parade on July 3rd. This really messed up my internal calendar.  Today, feels like Sunday instead of Monday.

Second, it’s still boring. I’ve been critical of the Stampede parade in the past because it is sterile.  A few years ago, the Stampede Committee put a stop to the traditional water gun fights.  They also put a stop to throwing candy and politics.  As a result, the parade is dull and one dimensional.

There is one thing that really struck me — how they received elected officials, candidates for office and their supporters. The reaction seemed to reflect the mood of a country that has little faith in its political institutions as the economy continues to falter.

When the Democrats, including Congresswoman Betsy Markey, Denver Mayor and gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper, and senatorial candidate Andrew Romanoff, passed by my spot, there was no booing, hissing, clapping, cheering or jeering. There was nothing — just erie silence.  The only attention they got was when my colleague George Gray briefly interviewed all three for the parade broadcast.

Last year , Markey was met with silence as well.  But this was different.  It seemed directed at the entire political class. I have no idea if they got the same reception along the rest of the parade route but it was nothing but silence from my position.

In this very conservative community, Republicans didn’t fare much better. There were polite claps but not the usual cheering.

This tells me that candidates, especially incumbents, will have to work a little harder for every vote.  This is a tough crowd.

Congresswoman Betsy Markey has time to play  UPS union member and get some TV face time:

But she has no time to answer constituent questions or questions from me.  Questions that I have posed to Markey’s office that have gone unanswered:

• Before the Cap and Trade vote I sent several emails asking which way she was voting. Neither she nor her office ever responded, but apparently she did speak with Denver Post columnist Susan Greene.
• After her yes vote on ObamaCare, I asked her to come on my show to explain her vote.  Her spokesperson Ben Marter responded once but never with any available times for an interview.
• Immediately after Mexican President Calderon’s address to Congress I sent an email to Marter asking if Congresswoman Markey stood and applauded when Calderon criticized the new Arizona law on illegal immigration.  I also asked if she supported his characterization of Mexico’s violent crime being traced to the US and the sunset of the “assault weapons ban.”
• On Saturday, I sent an email asking her position on legislation requiring states to allow collective bargaining for first responders, especially considering that both Fort Collins and Weld County voters have rejected such measures.

Markey delivers for UPS but not answers for voters.  Thanks to WhoSaidYouSaid for keeping an eye on Betsy Markey.