In Washington, DC, talking about the Bill of Rights can land you in jail for 90 days.

Our nation’s capital has a licensing scheme in place that makes it illegal for anyone to “guide or escort” anyone else for hire without first getting the government’s permission. To get the license, which the Washington Post editorial board labeled a Tour de farce, eager entrepreneurs must first pay hundreds of dollars in fees, fill out a bunch of forms and pass an arbitrary test.

That is, they need to jump through all sorts of needless hoops before they’re allowed to speak.

[Please help promote this video by voting it up and commenting on reddit here.]

The bottom line is that the Constitution protects your right to communicate for a living, whether you are a journalist, a stand-up comedian, a musician, or a tour guide.  The government cannot be in the business of deciding who may speak and who may not.

That is why two Washington, DC, tour guides—Tonia Edwards and Bill Main, who run a company called Segs in the City—joined forces with the Institute for Justice to file a major federal lawsuit challenging DC’s tour-guide licensing scheme as a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. Video and photos of the press conference are online.

Nearly every day, Tonia and Bill teach a group of people how to ride Segways and then take them around Washington, DC, on a tour of the city.  Their business is located near the National Archives, so one of the things they tell their customers is where the Bill of Rights is located.  For this, the city government could throw them in prison for three months.

(more…)

In today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, we’re talking about the Tea Party Movement, the Republicans’ latest pledge to America, and the upheaval in the White House’s staff. Plus we’re talking to Weekly Standard senior writer Jonathan Last about his powerful new piece on America’s One Child Policy.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment.com and Stephen Clouse and Associates. We’d also like to let you know that we’ve set up a standalone site at CoffeeandMarkets.com for easier browsing of our past broadcasts.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Bloomberg: Jobless Claims Rise
WSJ: Exodus at the White House
RealClearMarkets: Obama’s Problem is Ideology
John Goodman: The True Cost of Health Care
WaPo: Ahmadinejad’s Challenges
WSJ: John Boehner’s Business Ties
Politico: White House Denies Eyeing Koch Tax Returns
Weekly Standard: Goolsbee Talked About Koch Tax Status
Jonathan Last: America’s One Child Policy
TNL: Marriage and Children in America
CBSNews: The Republican Pledge to America
Redstate: The Pledge to Nowhere
Erick Erickson: Most Ridiculous DC Product Since McClellan
Tim Carney: Tea Partiers and Abortion
Bob Inglis: Reagan Wouldn’t Be At Home in Tea Parties
Coffee and Markets Podcast Archive

I”m biased, of course, but I’m very proud of the Cato Institute for its principled defense of individual liberty and limited government. Cato stood up against the so-called stimulus when others were quiet. Cato was against Obamacare, even back when it was called Romneycare. Now, we’re leading the fight on restraining Leviathan. The image below is our new full page ad on cutting wasteful programs, agencies, and departments – and asking Obama to fulfill his promise on reducing needless spending. Click here for a full-size version. And check out the Downsizing Government website put together by my colleague Chris Edwards.

The case for limited government is growing stronger each day. A Harvard economics professor just published a column about his research about the pro-growth benefits of spending cuts. Another column compared today’s anemic expansion with the strong growth under Reagan. And another economist recently reviewed America’s long-run fiscal danger caused by entitlement programs.

(more…)

The man whose name is at the top of the federal lawsuit against Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is that of Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez. This is the same man whose testimony in front of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights appeared to be the last straw for former trial attorney J. Christian Adams, who resigned from his job in the voting rights section of the Department of Justice on May 14, 2010.

Though Adams did not say Perez lied under oath, the implication was certainly there during part 2 of an interview he gave to Megyn Kelly of the Fox News Channel that aired on July 1, 2010. During that interview, Adams relayed parts of a conversation he had with Perez before the latter testified under oath (fast forward to the 1:45 mark of part 2):

Adams: For Tom Perez to go under oath to tell the same (false) story to the Civil Rights Commission, we wanted to make perfectly clear that he knew before he did that about the potential of his inaccurate testimony. We told him that but he still testified.

Kelly: Did this guy lie under oath?

Adams: I’m not a perjury expert. I know about the truth but I don’t know perjury.

If Perez didn’t tell the truth under oath, there’s only one other option. Adams went on to say that he “resigned later that afternoon,” again clearly implying a cause and effect relationship between what Perez testified to under oath in front of the Civil Rights Commission and what Adams knew about that testimony. (more…)

President Obama unveiled his latest economic proposal in Cleveland recently in a desperate attempt to boost the Democrats’ fleeting hopes of maintaining control of Congress this November.  But after two years of massive government spending and job-killing policies, the damage has already been done and it’s clear this fall’s election will be boiled down to a simple choice: job killers versus job creators.

With unemployment at 9.6%, the American people are clamoring for candidates with a solutions-oriented agenda for job creation as an alternative to the job-killing policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine.

Intel CEO Paul Otellini described it this way: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs.  And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”

Simply put, candidates who propose job-creating policies and show how their opponent’s policies are killing jobs will win decisively in 2010.

American Solutions has already put forth its Jobs Here, Jobs Now, Jobs First plan, so let’s examine the top 10 job-killing policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine.

(more…)

When Nancy Reagan launched her “Just Say No to Drugs” campaign in the early 1980s, Bill Clinton may (or may not) have still been inhaling, while Barack Obama almost certainly was.  Nevertheless, politicians in the 1980s might not have known that they were embarking on a campaign that has cost nearly $50 billion per year, caused millions of arrests and hundreds of thousands to be jailed and, after all of that, has arguably failed.

It’s too bad the political leaders who were responsible for launching and financing the war on drugs so many years ago didn’t spend some more time reflecting on other, more simple solutions—like unionizing the industry.

As Californians head to the polls on November 2nd, among the other decisions voters will be deciding on (like choosing whether or not to recycle ex-governor Jerry “California Über Alles” Brown), they will be voting on whether or not  pass Proposition 19—that is whether or not to legalize pot in California.  More specifically, whether or not to legalize “various marijuana-related activities, allow local governments to regulate these activities, permit local governments (but not the state government) to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorize various criminal and civil penalties.”

Like any budding new industry, Prop. 19 has not escaped unnoticed by union bosses.  In fact, over the past few months, unions have taken a keener-than-usual interest in the pot industry and its workers.

First, the United Food & Commercial Workers unionized some medical marijuana workers in May as part of an effort to bring “legitimacy to a once-hidden sector of the state’s economy” and boost the marijuana-legalization initiative.

Shortly afterward, the UFCW endorsed Proposition 19, stating:

(more…)

When I think of a “Pledge” I’m reminded of my fraternity days and being hazed and lightly humiliated.

House Republicans are offering their “Pledge to America” on Thursday morning, the 23rd of September. The country has been hazed enough by politicians; so a pledge to back off from some of them can be welcome.

I’m happy to see Republicans offer a “Plede to America”; I even confer a “Least Objectionable Legislator” Award occasionally when I notice a nod toward limiting government in some usually tentative, and not very bold, fashion–regardless of party. But for the time being, it’s refreshing to see politicians bring something to the table besides an appetite for power.

We need to carefully examine this Pledge program, to look not only at what it challenges, but at what it protects (are term limits in there? does it seriously question entitlements? does it root out regulation?).  Every program—every program–I say it a third time; every program, must be challenged; it’s not clear that’s where this document really goes, but let’s look and see, and encourage.  It’s not enough to cut “entitlements” back to 2008 levels as drafts indicate; today’s situation is too serious to warrant accepting a two-year-old status quo. That’s worrisome, but the jury’s out.

(more…)

Congressman Mike Pence spoke at Hillsdale College Monday night at the invitation of the Young Republicans. I attended the dinner held in his honor before the talk, briefly chatted with him, and listened with care and interest to his talk – which had as its subject “the Presidency and the Constitution.”

Pence, who has represented Indiana’s ninth district in Congress since 2001, attended Hanover College not far from Madison, Indiana – where my grandfather once owned a dry goods store. There, I knew, he had studied with my friend G. M. Curtis. On that ground alone, I figured that he might be worth hearing.

Pence is exceptionally articulate. Before entering Congress, he had done a six-year-long stint as a talk-radio host. In Congress, he emerged quickly as a conservative leader. To his great credit, he voted against two initiatives pressed by George W. Bush – No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug benefit – and, in 2005, he was unanimously elected the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Group.

In 2006, Pence ran against John Boehner for the post of minority leader in the House, calling for the Republican Party to return to its “small-government ideology,” and he lost. Two years later, however, in a move suggestive of Pence’s stature and of Boehner’s wiliness, the new minority leader recruited his onetime rival to head the House Republican Conference Group. For this office, Pence ran unopposed.

Pence’s lecture Monday night was impressive.

(more…)

One of us here at Big Government cut his teeth in Illinois politics. We could bore you with many stories, but trust us, IL House Speaker and Democrat State Party Chair Michael Madigan is the greatest, and most ruthless, practitioner of the political dark arts in the country. Really. People in DC think they know politics, but they are in kindergarten compared to what happens in the Wards of Chicago.

Anyway, Speaker Madigan is facing an “opponent” this November with the awesome Tom Clancy-esque name of John Patrick Ryan. (It’s the Bridgeport neighborhood…it happens.) Only thing is, no one can find this “opponent.” He hasn’t established a campaign committee, held any events or, even, ever voted in a GOP primary.

So, the IL GOP is doing something about this. They are raising money for Ryan’s campaign. More than that, they will actually run a campaign for the “Republican.” (Speaker Madigan is not going to like this.)

PatrickJohnRyanFundraiser

(more…)

Today, 6 months after passage, the first provisions of Government Health Care begin to take effect. Nothing will ever be the same again.

Sen. Orrin Hatch is up for reelection in 2012. On Wednesday, he used his considerable powers to ensure that Lisa Murkowski–who, you know, lost a GOP primary and continues to wage a Quixotic battle that may prevent a GOP win in Alaska–didn’t lose any of her “privileges” in the Senate.

Hatch had this howler for the Wall Street Journal:

“We all respect the system, and she still is a Republican senator,’’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah.) after the closed party caucus. “It’s just a matter of good taste. We decided to keep the status quo as long as she’s a senator.’’

(more…)

Things aren’t looking good for Nancy Pelosi.  For almost the last four years, she has been pounding the gavel, shoving her grand, big-government schemes through Congress.  Even in the midst of a worsening economy, she was able to cut enough backroom deals to garner the votes she and her political allies needed to capture their Holy Grail: American’s health care system.

Pundits and polls, however, are now predicting that Pelosi will lose hold of the speakership in November.  They may be correct.  Her years of political kneecapping and recriminations may have finally taken their toll.  Big government takeovers don’t do well in a deteriorating, capitalistic-based economy.  Still,  do not count her out yet.  Madam Speaker is not going anywhere without a fight.   Her hold on the gavel is firm.  Earlier this year, a Democratic insider was quoted in Politico saying, “[Pelosi] will put a bullet in the head of anyone she needs to.”  That insider went on to say that she would do whatever it took to hold on to her majority.  Now, there won’t be any firing of actual bullets, but she is no doubt digging deep into her arsenal.

What sets Pelosi apart from other national leaders, and specifically other Speakers in modern history, is her ability to strategize and execute like a political boss in the classical sense   Consider this: She has legislated a government takeover of at least one-sixth of the economy, challenged the Catholic Church on abortion, circumvented the White House to meet with a Mideast dictator, and claimed that her liberal agenda is part of a holy calling.  Those are some pretty heady accomplishments for the first female Speaker of the House.

(more…)

In 1994, GOP Leaders managed to release a “Contract with America” just days before voters swept them into office. Establishment types sitting in DC continue to believe that the “Contract” was somehow relevant to their victory. One of us was in the field during that election and can confirm that, at least where we were working, not a single voter had heard of the “Contract.” It was a DC thing.

37958976-GOP-Pledge-to-America –

Within hours, the DC GOP Establishment, desperate to show that they “get it,” will unveil their new “Contract.” They document is out now and is included here.

(more…)

Last night I read the front-page Washington Post story on Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars. Frankly the article gave me nightmares. The revelations about Obama’s naive views on terrorism and his lack of a firm commitment to the Afghan War  was nothing really new, they simply confirmed many of the worst fears about our President and the War on Terror. But Obama’s priorities, hes desire to place politics before victory was both surprising and upsetting.

The book details how Obama is not trying to win the war as much as he was desperately trying to placate his progressive base, regardless of the safety of American citizens. At one point the POTUS tells Woodward directly:

“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

Holy Cow!! Tell that to the families of the terrorist attack’s victims.

Even worse the book reports that President Obama did not even want to hear about many of the terrorist threats:

During a daily intelligence briefing in May 2009, Mr. Blair [former Director of Intelligence] warned the president that radicals with American and European passports were being trained in Pakistan to attack their homelands. Mr. Emanuel afterward chastised him, saying, “You’re just trying to put this on us so it’s not your fault.” Mr. Blair also skirmished with Mr. Brennan about a report on the failed airliner terrorist attack on Dec. 25. Mr. Obama later forced Mr. Blair out.

Obama’s Wars,  covers last fall’s agonizingly slow Afghanistan strategy review last fall. One of the reasons for the snail-like pace for developing a plan was Obama seemed more interested in mapping out an exit plan than winning the war. The book makes it clear that the U.S. military has been asked to achieve its goals in Afghanistan without the level of troops they requested and in an unrealistic time frame.

(more…)

Adam Carolla, host of the hugely popular Adam Carolla Show and author of the new book, In Fifty Years We’ll All Be Chicks, rages against cops, drug laws, tax hikes, traffic congestion, spendy politicians, Tim Robbins, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and more in this wide-ranging, uncensored interview with Reason.tv’s Ted Balaker.

The Ace Man calls for legalizing drugs and gambling, lowering taxes, and clearing our prisons of anyone incarcerated for victimless crimes. He discusses whether he just might be a libertarian and spells out what he would do if he replaced Antonio Villaraigosa as mayor of Los Angeles (hint: left turns on red lights and drag racing with Richard Branson!).

(more…)

We’re preparing to move out of my Sacramento apartment so I went online to check rates to rent a small truck.

I first checked U-Haul; they have a great brand name and I’ve used them before.  The cost to rent a 10 foot truck from Sacramento to Irvine: $219.  It all seemed pretty straightforward – until I started to complete the online contract.  In addition to the $219, U-Haul suggested I buy some insurance for $60, saying that most car insurance policies don’t cover rental trucks, unlike rental cars.  OK, reasonable enough.  Then I came to a $5 “Environmental Fee” payable at the store.

“Environmental Fee?!?” I thought.  I clicked on the link to explain this unexpected fee and U-Haul treated me to a rambling eight paragraph paean to their environmental consciousness, saying, in part, “For more than 60 years, the U-Haul Companies have provided an economical, sustainable and environmentally friendly means for families to move to a better future.” And that “sharing” trucks rather than buying one for the average family’s twice a decade move reduces “hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.” And “With 15,000 locations across the United States and Canada, U-Haul truck sharing helps to reduce the carbon footprint of many local communities.” So far, the $5 fee hadn’t been explained – I was on the edge of my seat for the punch line – until finally, in the last paragraph: “The Customer money collected as an environmental fee is expended to reduce the negative impact of our business on future generations. Aerodynamic fuel saving truck skirts, the fuel economy gauge, storage re-use centers, environmentally friendly truck wash soap, are examples of where these funds go.”

Ahh, I see.

(more…)

The exercise of free speech is acceptable to the left when they agree with what you are saying. But when the left and media types find the views disagreeable or inconvenient and painfully true, the exercise of free speech becomes portrayed as sinister.

For example, the Committee for Truth in Politics has run a series of hard-hitting ads targeting House and Senate liberals and as a bonus they are driving the media insane in their quest to identify their donors.  No luck.

CBS newsman Armen Keteyian traveled to small town Indiana to interview Jim Bopp, the counsel for the Committee and a champion for free speech and privacy.  Just watch this two-minute interview and see the look on the reporters face.  How dare someone not tell him who their donors are!  Bravo!

Stymied by lawyers like Bopp and groups like the Committee for Truth in Politics, Americans for Prosperity and others, the President and the Democrat Congress — with the support of the media — are attempting to change the law to force disclosure of campaign donors. Translated: more state control of free speech.  Of course, American history has a long and noble tradition of anonymous political activity.  Publius and his compatriots wrote the Federalist Papers.  Common Sense was published anonymously and the NAACP went to court to prevent disclosure of their donors against racists in the Alabama government who attempted to use the information to threaten their supporters.  Each and every instance such activity was protected by the First Amendment.

(more…)

Many observers believe that the turning point in Scott Brown’s inspiring Senate win in January was when he was able to shake-loose the Democratic narrative that somehow he was trying to take away “Ted Kennedy’s Seat” from the Democrats.  His brilliant response, “It’s the PEOPLE’S seat” became a campaign slogan and, eventually, the theme of his victory speech.

Are we now witnessing another such moment in Orange County California?

Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez appeared on Spanish-language Univision to appeal to her most important voting base:  Latino voters.  Perhaps with a false assumption that only Latinos from the left were listening, she let slip an offensive and patronizing charge:  The Vietnamese are trying to take the seat from Latinos.

Rep. Sanchez district has seen an enormous influx of Vietnamese immigrants over the past two decades.  There have often been tensions between the Latino population and the new arrivals from Asia.  Because the vast majority of Vietnamese immigrants arrived here seeking refuge from a communist, totalitarian regime, they tend to lean more to the right than their Mexican counterparts.

(more…)

September 22, 2010 marks the end of summer and beginning of fall.  So it’s an appropriate time to review the results of Democrats’ “Recovery Summer” for American workers.

Recovery_Summer_Report_2010_

In announcing the start of the “Recovery Summer” on June 17, 2010, the White House described Recovery Summer as a “surge in Recovery Act infrastructure projects that will be underway across the country in the coming months – and the jobs they’ll create well into the fall and through the end of the year.” Vice President Biden pledged that “this bold investment in the future will stimulate short-term and long-term American jobs….The upcoming summer of projects is the next step on the road to recovery.”

But did “Recovery Summer” show that Democrats’ trillion-dollar stimulus plan is really working as the White House continues to insist?  Unfortunately for American workers, the answer remains a disappointing “no.”

The data in this report shows that as “Recovery Summer” ends today:

(1) The unemployment rate is far higher than Administration officials predicted it would be if their stimulus plan passed;

(more…)