I was in such a hurry tonight that I didn’t put this up on time. The show is live from 9 to midnight. You can listen live at http://wsbradio.com. You can call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread.

[UPDATE: 'Amazon tax laws,' for those who are wondering, represent attempts to get around a Supreme Court ruling regarding out-of-state transactions.  Residents of states who have a sales tax are theoretically expected to pay sales tax on all transactions, not just ones that take place in-state: however, vendors with out-of-state customers have long taken the position that trying to keep track of every jurisdiction's sales tax rules is an undue burden upon them.  The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that vendors are only required to track and collect sales tax on transactions for states where they had a physical presence.  This effectively means that online retailers such as Amazon.com are effectively released from the burden of collecting sales tax information.  Various Democratic state legislators - blanching at the very idea of trying to enforce individual residents from reporting their online transactions for taxation purposes - have attempted to make an end run around this ruling by writing legislation declaring in-state affiliates of online retailers as counting in terms of 'physical location:' Amazon's typical response is to immediately cancel all affiliate programs in the targeted state, thus eliminating any need for them to collect sales tax information.]

That’s the preliminary ruling by a US District Court judge, at least: he’s ruled that the law is unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds, and has issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the state of Colorado to enforce the disclosure rules on out-of-state vendors before the deadline.  I am not a lawyer, but the short version is that the judge ruled that the Amazon tax law violated the Commerce Clause by putting regulatory and disclosure burdens on out-of-state vendors that were not present on in-state ones; that the plaintiffs (including the Direct Marketing Association) had a valid chance to prevail in the broader case; and that until the issue was involved it would be inappropriate for the State of Colorado to collect information as per the Amazon tax law.

This is only a preliminary injunction, obviously: if this court or a higher one decides that the law is Constitutional after all it’ll be reversed.  That’s why Colorado House Majority Leader Amy Stephens (Republican, of course) is introducing legislation repealing the original law.  Colorado Senate Majority Leader John Morse (Democrat) is reflexively opposing the repeal, even though he’s sufficiently ignorant of the ruling as to apparently think that either the DMA or its members have revenue caps of $600/year.  New Governor Hickenlooper is thus in a bit of a jam; he’s facing a House that decidedly flipped last election cycle and a looming court controversy, and a remarkably uneducated set of Senate allies on the other.  That this can be fairly categorized as a ‘bit of a jam’ tells you a lot about the current ideological condition of the various state Democratic parties.

Read More →

The first ever meeting of the Senate Tea Party Caucus was convened yesterday on Capitol Hill and it was a great success.  The left wing media is doing everything they can to demonize the Tea Party movement.  It is not going to work. 

The Heritage Foundation sent a camera and here is a video of the proceedings for those who could not make the first meeting which was open to the public.

Here is the opening paragraph of the Washington Post story today.

The Republican senators who rode the tea party wave to victory in the fall are now weighing whether that label will help them on Capitol Hill or become a scarlet letter.

Why would being a member of the Tea Party be a “scarlet letter?”  I think Tea Party members agree that there is infighting between the major Tea Party groups, but the Tea Party movement is unified by an ideology.  All Tea Party groups want to shrink the size and scope of the federal government.

Read More →

I sure hope the Tea Party Express backs away from perhaps the lamest comment uttered so far gearing up for 2012.

Sal Russo, chief strategist for Tea Party Express, says TPE won’t go after Orrin Hatch in 2012 because 35 years ago Orrin Hatch supported Reagan over Ford.

No, I’m not making that up.

There are lots of reasons one may decide not to oppose Orrin Hatch. But having to jump into the way back machine to find one should not be it.

Club For Growth, perhaps in a hint of what it intends despite what its statement says, sent out a press release with these remarks from CFG President Chris Chocola:

“While Senator Hatch’s activity in the 1976 presidential campaign is commendable, a lot can change in 35 years,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “Senator Hatch has a lower lifetime average on the Club for Growth’s Congressional Scorecard than his former colleague Bob Bennett for a reason. Orrin Hatch has done some good things over the decades, but six term incumbents who vote for TARP, the Bridge to Nowhere, the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout, SCHIP, and higher taxes are quite clearly not ‘as good as it gets,’” Chocola said. . . .

Chocola concluded, “We have made no decision about the upcoming Utah Senate race, but when we do, our decision will be about improving the Senate in 2013, not 1977.”

As of yet I have no dog in the fight, though I suspect tea party activists in Utah, with or without TPE, will be looking for someone to oppose Hatch in 2012. That’s just reality.

According to Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, Barack Obama is opposed because he is black. No, it has nothing to do with his policies. Nothing at all.

Moran even took shots at former slave holding states, including his own, which, like the slave holding state of North Carolina, went for Barack Obama.

“In this case a lot of people in this country, I believe, don’t want to be governed by an African American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society,” Moran told an interviewer, as reported by the Washington Post.

Race and “inclusivity” have nothing to do with it Congressman. But at least you are willing to admit Barack Obama is a liberal.

Download audio here

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss gambling on the NYSE, GDP and conflicting reports of what started the financial crisis.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

The NYSE Gets Funny
Q4 GDP Advance Report: Up 3.2%
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Dissenting Statement
What Caused the Financial Crisis?
Phil Angelides: Financial crisis ‘didn’t need to happen’
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Dissenting Statement - Wallison, Burns

Read More →

There was BIG news in Washington yesterday:

Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), have introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act.

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act (SBPA), legislation that will guarantee the right of every American worker to have a secret ballot election on whether to unionize. The bill would guarantee workers the opportunity to cast a secret ballot before a union can be organized.

Seventeen cosponsors have joined DeMint to introduce the bill including Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), John McCain (R-Arizona), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), James Risch (R-Idaho), Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), John Thune (R-South Dakota), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi).

“Last Congress, union bosses and their Democrat allies tried their best to deny workers their basic American right to a guaranteed secret ballot election,” said Senator DeMint. “Secret ballot voting is a basic American value that we must protect. This bill ensures every American worker gets to cast a secret ballot vote without pressure and fear of retribution from union organizers and coworkers looking over their shoulder. No American should be forced to join or pay dues to a union just to have the opportunity to work and provide for their family.”

Why the Secret Ballot Protection Act?

Read More →

RedState Morning Briefing
For January 28, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

Read More →

Moe has a good post on the demise of so called “Filibuster Reform” from earlier today.  The Senate voted on a package of rules reform proposals, but the filibuster is safe from an attempt by a simple majority of Senators to expunge it from the rules of the Senate.  The minority party and individual Senators will retain the right to force an extended debate and participate in the legislative process.  The left wing partisans seeking to seize total control over the Senate’s agenda for the next two years have lost.

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post reported on the demise of the liberals plan to gut the filibuster rule:

“As part of this compromise,” Reid said, “we’ve agreed that I won’t force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate — that is the so-called ‘constitutional option’ — and he [McConnell] won’t in the future.” In other words, Reid and McConnell have agreed that the Senate’s rules cannot — or at least should not — be decided by a simple majority. That was what the constitutional option was about, and that’s what Reid explicitly rejected in his speech. Why? “Both McConnell and Reid feared what would happen if they were in the minority,” explains a Reid aide.

This is a wise move for the left who may be 2 years away from Republican control of the Executive Branch and both chambers of Congress.  Cooler heads have prevailed and Senators avoided a move that would have destroyed the traditions and unique nature of the Senate.

Read More →

As many of you are hearing, Mike Pence will not be running for President. Many conservatives across the spectrum from fiscal to social had been rallying hoping for Pence to run. I was one of them.

While Indiana Republicans can rejoice at a stellar candidate with a clear field for Governor, conservatives looking for inspiration in the 2012 Presidential field will have to keep looking.

It is disappointing, but not unexpected. The field is now wide open for a candidate to shine with conservatives. I would only say that 2012 is not like 2008 and I think before settling conservatives are going to have to take a serious look at some of the fresh faces who might enter.

As for me, I am going to sit on the sidelines and do as I have always done — publicly weighing both the pros and cons of the field, no doubt making everyone mad along the way.

…when I said that the only result would be a symbolic gesture towards ‘reform’ with no real changes.  It turns out that progressives didn’t even get that: their precious attempt to deny the Great Shellacking was quietly choked to death in a narrow, dusty room* Tuesday afternoon… and nothing was put in its place.  Tim Noah of Slate is kind of upset about it all -  which is kind of odd, considering that there was never a reasonable chance after November that the Democratic leadership would have made it easier to pass an Obamacare repeal bill.

Yes, that would have been the immediate result of this scheme.  Let me spell it out for those folks on the Other Side who are having difficulty following along (which apparently include some of their Senators).  When you control both Houses of Congress, but the opposition party has enough votes in the Senate to win cloture fights, you want filibuster ‘reform’ to make it easier to pass your legislation.  When you only control the Senate, the Senate opposition party wants filibuster ‘reform’ to make it easier to pass their legislation - particularly when it looks likely that the opposition party will be the majority party after the next election.

This is not particularly difficult to understand.  I’d say that I’m sorry that progressive politicians are too steeped in twinned warm delusions (first delusion, that progressives are popular; second delusion, that the November elections can be negated by an act of Will) to really comprehend this… except that I try not to lie to people.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Yeah, that’s a G.K. Chesterton reference.  Because that’s how I roll.

Obama must think we’re fools.

In his State of the Union address, he pledged to freeze “discretionary” spending for the next five years, which is a pitiful promise to make after he’s been treating the American taxpayers as his own personal ATM machine. In fact, this “freeze” is so paltry that, according to a Congressional Budget Office baseline, it will reduce discretionary spending by a meager .69%.

That’s it!

Keep in mind since Obama took office, he’s jacked up non-defense discretionary spending by 84%.

Imagine an exercise routine that was billed in a similar fashion: “For every 84% of caloric increase, we’ll help you shed .69% of them! Thank me!”

Fortunately, it looks like the GOP isn’t duped by Obama’s vacuous rhetoric. As Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio noted in an exclusive interview with HUMAN EVENTS, “there is a window of time rapidly closing where, if we don’t take action, really bad financial things are going to happen to this country.”

Read More →