The current deepening local government fiscal crisis, as we noted in a paper last fall, is forcing more and more communities to ask just what, exactly, is the purpose and scope of municipal government in America.
Now, a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal about Colorado Springs, CO reports some of the most extreme tumult yet.
There in libertarian “CS,” the home of the U.S. Air Force Academy and Focus on the Family, a precipitous downturn in local government revenue is prompting a fairly eyebrow-raising inquiry into just how limited limited government can get:
•Street lights? CS has flipped the switch on over one-third of them but allows residents to adopt a light for $100 a year
•Police patrols? Taxi cab drivers now volunteer to back up overstretched cops
•Trash removal? Advertisers sponsor trash cans and volunteers contract to remove the rubbish in 128 neighborhood parks
•Neighborhood community centers? Current barebones city support will dry up at year’s end, leaving the four centers’ fate to private or philanthropic engagement. An evangelical church has stepped forward to operate one
As to what we are to make of all of all of this, one view would be to dismiss Colorado Springs’ radical cut-backs and embrace of volunteerism as just the latest manifestation of anti-government extremism in the birthplace of Colorado’s small-government movement. After all, voters almost a decade ago imposed strict limits on how much the city government can spend and last November they rejected a property-tax increase, despite warnings from city officials about a projected $28 million shortfall requiring at least a 10 percent cut in an already shrunken budget.
However, another view of Colorado Springs’ grand experiment is to see it as one of the starkest auguries yet of the coming big debate the nation will soon be having about the size and shape of government in an era not just of recession, but of demographic and structural changes and years of avoided decisions.
Indeed, if a few lively back-and-forths among readers of the Colorado Springs Gazette are any indication, the folks of Colorado Springs are engaged in a spirited and democratic—if unwitting—debate about the proper and desired role of local government in their community that is compelling because it’s not theoretical but instead occurring neighborhood to neighborhood. Some residents prefer their parks mown and litter-free, while others are happy to no longer pay for park services they never use; some residents welcome the absence of light pollution from street lights, while others fear for their night-time safety. A few astute readers question both how long volunteers will continue to step forward as the free rider problem inevitably surfaces, and whether lower-income neighborhoods—where public services like afterschool rec centers have high but less visible payoffs—have the same capacity to self-provide as affluent ones.
All of this debate is healthy, and it is interesting that rather than cut services entirely Colorado Springs residents have sought to employ alternative modes of service provision. Such responsibility suggests that true introspection—rather than Tea Party talking points—is motivating the debate in Colorado’s second largest city. Here’s betting that many more states and localities—along with federal lawmakers—will soon be engaging in similar reflection. And here’s hoping that a good amount of such reflection will beget the sort of true innovation that can yield a platform for future growth. That would be a good outcome for everyone, regardless of political bent.

There are very few outright birthers holding national office in the Republican Party. What you do have is considerable numbers of Republicans who won't say that President Obama is an American citizens and won't say he isn't. Call them quasi-birthers. Sharron Angle falls into that category:
Appearing Thursday on the conservative blog talk show Libertarian Politics Live, Angle was asked by a caller whether she had “any doubts whether or not President Obama is a legitimate president or a naturalized born citizen.”

“You know I think our Supreme Court has pretty much made that decision,” Angle said. “But I think what we’re dealing with now is the presidency of a year and a half here, and I feel that he is a weak president, and he has certainly put forward policies that have weakened America and weakened our stand in the world. We really, I’m very disappointed we didn’t feel that he was qualified purely because he had not the experience, he hadn’t – we didn’t know exactly how he was voting because he was only voting present when he was voting. And now we see that as a policy maker he has truly failed us.”
In other words, the courts have ruled, I'm not going to fight this question, but I'm also not saying it was correct.
There are very few outright birthers holding national office in the Republican Party. What you do have is considerable numbers of Republicans who won't say that President Obama is an American citizens and won't say he isn't. Call them quasi-birthers. Sharron Angle falls into that category:
Appearing Thursday on the conservative blog talk show Libertarian Politics Live, Angle was asked by a caller whether she had “any doubts whether or not President Obama is a legitimate president or a naturalized born citizen.”

“You know I think our Supreme Court has pretty much made that decision,” Angle said. “But I think what we’re dealing with now is the presidency of a year and a half here, and I feel that he is a weak president, and he has certainly put forward policies that have weakened America and weakened our stand in the world. We really, I’m very disappointed we didn’t feel that he was qualified purely because he had not the experience, he hadn’t – we didn’t know exactly how he was voting because he was only voting present when he was voting. And now we see that as a policy maker he has truly failed us.”
In other words, the courts have ruled, I'm not going to fight this question, but I'm also not saying it was correct.

The Washington Post looks at the 11 Republican Senators who supported comprehensive immigration reform under George W. Bush but refuse to do so now:
Some of the 11 senators whose support is critical to his plans signaled Thursday that they are not ready to back reform this time around. They also denied that they had changed their positions for political reasons.
Laena Fallon, a spokeswoman for Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), said the senator is interested in fixing the immigration system. But she added that he had made it clear he "does not support any initiative promoting comprehensive reform until the president and this administration get serious about controlling our borders."
Andy Fisher, a spokesman for Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), said the senator thinks it is simply the wrong moment for reform. "There really is not the political landscape to proceed with it at this time," he said.
Other minor legislation, designed to legalize those who came to the United States as children and then enrolled in U.S. colleges, "could potentially be doable this year," the spokesman said.
Sen. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) also said further border enforcement had to come first. "The president needs to work with Congress on a step-by-step approach, focusing first on securing our borders and then establishing a temporary worker program," he said.
Other Republicans sympathetic to the cause now have other priorities. Sen. John McCain, a past supporter, faces a tough battle in his Arizona primary. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), who had been working with Democrats on a draft reform bill earlier in the year, has now said that Congress should prioritize other issues such as Wall Street reform.

Over the past year or so the nebulous movement known as the Tea Party has co-opted many of the symbols of the founding fathers to fight against (among other things) taxation without representation. However, on Tax Day it is important to remember the one group of present-day citizens who know what “taxation without representation” really means: residents of the District of Columbia.
A refresher: Washington, D.C. has no Senator or Representative in Congress to advocate for its 588,000 District residents (541,000 of whom are citizens) because it is neither a state nor part of any state (by comparison the state of Wyoming, which has three votes in Congress, has 65,000 fewer residents and 16,000 fewer citizens). District residents contributed $17 billion in personal taxes to the federal budget last year. By comparison, Wyoming residents paid only $2.6 billion in personal taxes. D.C. does elect a non-voting Delegate (currently Eleanor Holmes Norton) to the House of Representatives, as do the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands (Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner, which is very similar). However, these other territories do not pay federal income taxes.
Perhaps the most aggravating aspect of the lack of federal representation is that Congress retains its veto power over virtually all laws and budgets passed by DC’s City Council (including local taxes). Consequently some congressmen use the District to score political points in their home districts hundreds or even thousands of miles away, without regard for the will of District residents (as when Congressman Natcher of Kentucky withheld funding for Metro in the 1970s or last year’s fight over medical marijuana, needle exchanges, and abortion funding).

Pew finds older, Republican-leaning voters far more likely to vote this year than younger, Democratic-leaning voters:
Voters younger than age 30 favor the Democratic candidate in their district by a wide margin (57% to 32%). Yet only half of young voters say they are absolutely certain to vote. Voters ages 50 and older favor the Republican candidate in their district by double digits (11 points) and roughly eight-in-ten (79%) say they are absolutely certain to vote.
And, as many polls have found, the public still views the Democratic Party more favorably than the GOP on key measures:
But that probably is not going to have much impact at the polls in November. And if the economy continues to tank, as appears likely right now, look out below.
.Scott Brown claims to have a fiscally responsible plan to pay for unemployment benefits. In fact it's a money-losing gimmick that provides a windfall to the rich:
The senator has argued that “we need to stop borrowing against our children and grandchildren’s future and start paying for things.” Nevertheless, in proposing his own stimulus legislation this week, he included a gimmick that, while offsetting some costs in the short term, would make the deficit worse over the long term.
Here’s how it would work:
Americans could roll over their 401(k) balances into “Roth” accounts. Taxpayers would pay tax up front on the rollover funds but, in the future, all of the earnings on these funds would be completely tax-free. Moreover, “Roth” accounts have very permissive distribution rules and, unlike regular IRA accounts, Roth account holders do not have to make withdrawals when they reach age 70½. As a result, the rollover option would give affluent people a way to shelter years of investment earnings and then pass the accumulated funds to their heirs.