Big business lobbying for and profiting from big government -- to the detriment of small business -- is my beat, and The American Spectator today tells the tale of another incidence of Regulatory Robbery.

On the table is a bill to prohibit manufacturers from placing certain conditions on the retailers who want to sell their goods. In a practice called "Resale Price Maintanence," manufacturers sometimes tells stores, in effect: if you want to sell our goods, you can't sell them below the minimum price we dictate.

Competitive Enterprise Institute researcher Jonathan Moore explains why big retailers are lobbying to outlaw this practice by manufacturers:

Consider a consumer shopping for a brand new plasma TV or DVD player. A consumer could ask a salesperson at a small high-end electronics store to show him exactly how it works. He would then receive a tutorial explaining all of the device's features. The retailer provides these services in order to increase the number of consumers spending money in their store.

This service costs money and time for the store. They must pay an employee who has to devote his time to educating customers rather than other tasks needed to keep the store running efficiently. Further, educating the employee on new product features costs the store time and money.

Now what happens if the customer walks out of the store, with the knowledge he has just received for free, turns on his laptop and purchases the item from an online discount store? The customer and the discount store are free riders, both benefitting from the high end store's service without have to pay for it, while the high end store loses out on the money and time they could have saved by not providing the service.

RPM, however, can thwart this free rider problem. If the manufacturer sets a minimum price for a good, competition between retailers continues, it simply takes a different form; that of a race to the top of the quality of service the retailers provide.

If the practice becomes illegal, the result will be that huge discount retailers such as Wal-Mart, eBay, and Amazon will benefit greatly from the free rider problem discussed above. Outlawing alternative pricing measures intended to ensure that people do not take advantage of the free services offered by specialty stores will ensure that discount retailers will be able to grab a larger market share than perhaps would be possible in a free market.

The battle over RPM is just another anecdote which calls into question the conventional wisdom that big business always opposes new regulations, preferring the anarchic free market.

Obama: A question of venue.              (reuters photo)

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today said don't hold your breath for a decision on where to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It's going to be awhile.

Q: Robert, do you know when we can expect a decision on the KSM trial?

Mr. Gibbs: I don't expect a decision on that for several or many weeks.

Q: Will it be the president's decision?

Mr. Gibbs: The president obviously has gotten involved because Congress has actively been involved in venue options for any trial involving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The president's obviously strong equity in this is seeing that after many long years that justice is brought.

Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak said yesterday at a townhall in his home state, "I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago" that a deal could be reached to pass a health care bill that bans public funding of abortion. Some speculated that this meant Stupak was ready to cave. "Obviously they don’t know me," Stupak said in an interview this afternoon with THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "If I didn’t" cave in November, "why would I do it now after all the crap I’ve been through?"

"Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise—there’s no such thing," Stupak said. What's changed between this week and last, Stupak went on, is that he had his first real conversation with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Henry Waxman about fixing the bill.

But Stupak made one thing very clear: While he's optimistic, there's a lot of confusion about how the House would structure a bill that he could vote for. Stupak says "the majority party can get it done. Where there’s a will there’s a way." But: "No one has said here's how you do it, here's the legislative scheme."

Stupak affirmed that he will not settle for an agreement to pass the bill now and fix the bill's problems on abortion later: "If they say 'we’ll give you a letter saying we'll take care of this later,' that’s not acceptable because later never comes."

Stupak highlighted other problems with the bill: The president's proposal has not been translated into legislative language and it still leaves some special deals in place. "If you look at the President’s proposal," Stupak said, "it says that the Cornhusker agreement is out, but the Louisiana Purchase is in."

"Members don’t have a whole lot of appetite to vote for the Senate bill as a stand alone bill--that’s for sure," Stupak said. "If you're going to correct these inequities in the Senate bill, you better tie bar it to something. No one wants to vote for a freestanding bill so they can be accused of voting for a special deal for Nebraska on Medicaid."

Stupak added: 

The president still hasn’t put forth his proposal. I mean, other than the 11 pages [of changes], we’ve seen nothing in writing. It’s different than what the Senate did. So do they take three [measures] and merge it into one and stick it in a bill called reconciliation, or just do the Senate bill as a stand alone?

“You have to tie-bar it or substitute it or something," Stupak said of the legislation. By "tie-bar," Stupak means that all the fixes, including his amendment on abortion, would pass or fail all at the same time. Stupak says that congressional leaders are "going back and forth in different ways" to find a compromise. But again, "it is so confusing," he said, "on what the parliamentary procedures are going to be" to make the fixes.

Stupak said he has not yet spoken to the president, who invited him to the Russian opera last week. Asked if he was a big fan of the opera, Stupak, who represents a district encompassing the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, laughed and said: "No, I’m not a fan of opera, especially not Russian opera because I wouldn't understand a thing."

Stupak said that White House officials are "trying to get face time with members to convince them to vote for a bill that no one has seen in writing."

"The point I was trying to make" by relaying the opera story, Stupak said, "is that the White House is pulling out all of the stops trying to get members to commit to voting for health care. I continue to say to the White House: Put forth your proposal in writing so that members can see it. No member is so weak on this issue that just because they got to go to the opera they’re going to vote for health care."

Stupak emphasized that his coalition of pro-life Democrats is sticking together: "My numbers remain firm at 12. These are 12 who voted for it [in November] who will not vote for it unless we resolve this issue."

Read no evil, text no evil, speak no evil in the House gym.       (ap photo)

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs gets some weirdo questions, but even he probably never thought working for the president would lead to this:

Q: Robert, as long as we’re asking about lobbying members of the Congress, I have to ask you whether you’ve had a chance to talk to Rahm Emmanuel about whether or not he lobbied Congressman Massa in the nude in the House gym and whether that’s a standard practice or not?
 
MR. GIBBS: I have -- you’re happy to email him. I have not asked him.

Well, ah, could you and get back to us? Because Rush Limbaugh is like, totally obsessed.

Mr Massa said: "I am showering, naked as a jailbird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped round his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget. Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?"

Don't answer that.

It's the federal government's job to get everyone online, whether they like it or not.

That was the consensus of a summit jointly held by the Federal Communications Commission and the John S. Knight Foundation. The three and a half hour “Digital Inclusion Summit,” held in Washington, D.C.’s Newseum and emceed by FCC Chair Julius Genachowski, pushed the trope that the “underserved” must receive broadband access through government assistance. Most shocking about the summit was the casual acceptance of greater government coercion to get more people online -- whether they like it or not.

In a survey taken by Pew, one in three consumers who lack Internet simply do not want it. Of current dial-up users, about 62 percent have no interest in subscribing to broadband. But you wouldn't know it from this summit.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn (daughter of Sen. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C.) stated that the "path to adoption [of broadband] is social." Literacy alone, "is no longer sufficient. Literacy must be supplemented by digital literacy."

These digital literacy efforts, however, typically look no different from an informercial for cable companies. As Karl Bode writes:

There's some legitimate reasons to be wary of such campaigns, given that some of the programs we've seen proposed so far (like the NCTA's A+ program) seem to be little more than taxpayer-subsidized cable advertising campaigns dressed up as altruism. Some of this push to bring service to people who may not want it is about carriers wanting to use taxpayer dollars for a broadband equivalent of the "Got Milk?" ad campaign.

Clyburn nevertheless went on to suggest that government efforts to ensure greater willingness to embrace the Internet should mirror the efforts of Americorps, who went from door to door helping install converter boxes in advance of the digital TV transition. “We need to invest in libraries and community organizations” to get people comfortable with the Internet.

“Non-adopters may be uncomfortable operating a computer, or being exposed online to the dangers, but helping those people become comfortable with it may be just enough to get them online,” she said.

The term “non-adopters” is one of several euphemisms for the various classes of 93 million people who, according to the FCC, are “kept” from going online, whether because of cost, lack of digital skills, or a lack of concern. But hardly anyone addressed why these users, who have thus far felt little need to get online, would benefit from more costly broadband access rather than dial-up, which may suit their needs just as well.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Wayne Crews and Ryan Radea have remarked that "[i]n areas where very fast broadband is available and priced competitively, relatively few consumers subscribe to the fastest tier available to them. This indicates that most consumers presently place relatively little value on extremely high speeds." 

Yet Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., ignored the difference, instead emphasizing that “there is no family that wants to be removed from what happens with the rest of society.” He added that although the stimulus was passed to create jobs now, “it was also serve to provide children with jobs in the future.”

One speaker said that Becerra’s speech “brought tears to [her] eyes."

Like homelessness, threats to civil liberties suddenly disappear when Democrats inhabit the White House. Mark Hemingway noticed when the Congress quietly passed the reauthorization, and now Kevin Mooney at TimesCheck marks its signing by President Obama. Not that anyone else noticed:

President Obama has signed off on a one year extension of The Patriot Act that won overwhelming congressional approval just over a week ago; not that anyone reading The New York Times would know.

Throughout the Bush years, The Times editorialized vociferously against key provisions of the counter-terrorism law and gave wide latitude to critics from the American Civil Liberties Union and other left-leaning institutions.

A Nexis search shows that in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns The Times repeatedly called out the Bush Administration for using The Patriot Act as a tool to violate constitutional provisos.

"I should never have allowed myself to be as familiar with my staff as I was," former Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., told Glenn Beck this afternoon in the first segment of his program.

Massa explained away new allegations that he had groped "multiple male staffers" by describing a tickle-fight he had with his roommates in Washington, D.C. He also brought out a photo album from his time in the Navy to demonstrate how hazing could be confused with homosexual harassment.

Beck asked straight out about whether the allegations of sexual harassment and groping were true. Massa replied that they were not.

BECK: "Did you ever touch anybody sexually -- grope anybody sexually?"

MASSA: "No. No, no."

Why then, Beck asked, did he resign?

"Here's why: Because it doesn't make any difference what my intentions were. It's how it is perceived by the individual who receives that action."

Massa said that he chose to resign -- he was not forced out -- but he maintained that there was a connection between his ouster and his opposition to President Obama's health care bill. Beck was skeptical, and kept bringing up the issue of why Massa would resign over a tickle-fight.

"I can't understand the white flag," Beck said.

This comes from Speaker Pelosi's speech today before the Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties. The boldface is mine:

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other.  But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket.  Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. 

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

Americans are precisely worried they will find out, the hard way, "what is in it," after it's been passed. Whence "the controversy."

(h/t Free Republic)

Z. Byron Wolf at ABC News has an excellent rundown of how insurers benefit from Obama's health-care reform. Some highlights:

the Senate health reform bill ... would give the insurance companies millions of new customers required by law to buy health insurance....

the government would give to people money to buy insurance - $336 billion over the next ten years. That money, ultimately, would have to go to... drum roll... insurance companies.

People without employer-sponsored insurance who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid and less than about $88,000 for a family of four, would get tax credits to help them buy insurance on the open market. But the payment of the tax credits would be made, point out Republican researchers, directly to insurance companies. See page 37 here of the Senate Finance Committee's exhaustive explanation of the plan: 

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama criticized a proposal by Sen. John McCain because it would send government help for people to buy insurance directly to insurance companies.

“But The New Tax Credit [For Health Insurance] He’s Proposing? That Wouldn’t Go To You. It Would Go Directly To Your Insurance Company – Not Your Bank Account," said Obama in October on the Campaign trail.

And yet that’s exactly what Democrats' proposal would do...

This post, by University of Maryland government professor John Gimpel, on the Rick Perry campaign, makes the point that old-fashioned campaigning—spending money on TV ads, direct mail and robocalling, is far less effective than interpersonal campaigning, including “home headquarters,” email communication, social media and website updates. Fundraising was done similarly, with emphasis on person-to-person contact and respectful demeanor. This fortifies Patrick Ruffini’s conclusion that money is not as important as it used to be and that using fundraising and spending metrics as a measure of a campaign’s vitality is outdated. Ruffini was writing to discourage Republicans from seeking self-funding candidates, but his point is of more general application. My own view is that the Internet has rendered the old rules about the importance of money in campaigns irrelevant. Just spending money on TV ads doesn’t work like it used to. Connecting with voters more personally is more important.

When health care reform passed the House in November, the vote was 220-215. Since that time, three Democrats who voted “yes” are no longer in the House (two resigned, one died). Also, the sole Republican voting “yes” has announced he will vote “no” when the Senate bill is brought to the House. One Democrat who voted "no" -- Rep. Eric Massa, N.Y. -- has also resigned.

Moreover, as many as a dozen Democrats who voted “yes” on the House version say they will vote “no” on the Senate version because it lacks language to prevent taxpayer subsidies for abortion coverage. Included in this group are Reps. Bart Stupak (Mich.), Jim Oberstar (Minn.), Marion Berry (Ark.) and Dan Lipinksi (Ill.).

UPDATE: Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., who voted for the House bill in November, said last month that he would vote "no" on the Senate bill.

When you do the math, Democrats probably have only about 205 votes to pass health care reform. With four empty House seats, they will need 216 to guarantee passage.

Democratic leaders will be working furiously to twist the arms of the 39 Democrats (38 are still Democrats) who voted “no” last time. Their names are listed below, and the ones who might still flip are listed in red.

Note, however, that whip counts like this one are often unreliable. In 2003, as Republicans scrambled for the final votes for Medicare Part D, I interviewed one conservative Congressman who was adamantly opposed to the bill. He laid out his case against it spectacularly. Hours later, he voted "yes" under heavy pressure from the Bush administration.

Here are the 18 Democrats who, after voting "no" on health care reform in November, are now most likely to flip and vote "yes" this time around:

John Adler, N.J. – On Fox News Sunday, he didn't quite rule out voting "yes": “If the House and the Senate can’t work out cost containment, I don’t see how I support a bill that doesn’t help our business community and create more jobs, he said.” (Fox News Sunday, Mar. 7, 2010)

Jason Altmire, Pa. – Altmire equivocated this weekend on Fox News Sunday, saying he has an "open mind" about it. “I have to make a decision between passing this bill...or doing nothing.  And I'm weighing the balance between the two.” 

Brian Baird, Wash. – Although he said he planned to vote no, the retiring congressman hedged a bit on CNN's State of the Union Mar. 7. “The problem is, if I think we could come up with a better solution, OK, than just to say health care reform goes down and therefore nothing ever happens, that would be a tragedy. And so that's the choice. I don't think this bill is what I would like to see us do if I could -- if I ran the universe, as it were, but I don't get to do that. So the status quo is unsustainable.”

John Barrow, Ga. – He always has close races in his Savannah-area district, which was made significantly more Republican through mid-decade redistricting. A "yes" vote might end his career. He has not indicated how he will vote, nor has he responded to inquiries from The Examiner.

John Boccieri, Ohio – A Mar. 4 statement from his office says he is “encouraged” that President Obama’s plan “contains important provisions to reduce fraud, waste and abuse and reduce the deficit.” The Daily Caller lists him among the "undecided."

Rick Boucher, Va. – He is considered by the AP one of those most likely to flip. But Boucher has resisted his party's leadership in the past -- for example, when he voted against McCain-Feingold. This year, he faces the fight of his career against the state House Majority Leader. His office has not responded to inquiries by The Examiner.
ar
Ben Chandler, Ky. – Chandler, already under fire for his support of cap-and-trade legislation last year, has given no public indication so far on his health care vote. His spokeswoman has not yet responded to inquiries by The Examiner.

Lincoln Davis, Tenn. – His office tells The Examiner that he remains undecided.

Bart Gordon, Tenn. – He is retiring, and considered by the Associated Press to be among those most likely to flip. In light of his recent comments, this seems quite likely. "He is not going to be making a final decision until he sees the final language," he told The Examiner.

Tim Holden, Pa. – The Allentown Morning Call reported last week that Holden, a pro-life Democrat, is not saying how he will vote, and he has not responded to inquiries by The Examiner.

Suzanne Kosmas, Fla. – Her district was drawn for a Republican, but she defeated former Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla. by exploiting his relationship with now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Her office has not responded to The Examiner's inquiries, but some consider her a prime candidate to flip and vote "yes."

Betsy Markey, Colo. – Her re-election chances in her Republican district could be slim in a bad year for Democrats, but she isn't ruling out a "yes" vote. Her office has not responded to The Examiner's inquiries.

Jim Matheson, Utah – Just as he began to contemplate his vote, President Obama appointed his brother Scott to a federal judgeship. Good timing. Matheson told The Deseret News that he is undecided. "He has not announced how he will vote," his office told The Examiner.

Scott Murphy, N.Y. – The victor in a 2009 special election, Murphy is a fan of a single-payer health care system. His office did not reply to The Examiner's inquiries.

Glenn Nye, Va. – Nye, who defeated former Rep. Thelma Drake, R-Va., is among those considered most likely to switch and vote "yes," but his office did not respond to The Examiner's inquiries.

Ike Skelton, Mo. – Skelton, an old House bull with a pro-life voting record, could nonetheless be appealed to on party loyalty grounds, or even the loss of his chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee. His office did not respond to The Examiner's inquiries.

John Tanner, Tenn. –Tanner is retiring. His staff recently released a statement that leaves him open to switching: "Until we know what that bill will include, how will it be brought to the floor and what the Congressional Budget Office says regarding its cost, there is no way for [Congressman] Tanner to declare his support or opposition.” His office did not respond to The Examiner's inquiries.

Harry Teague, N.M. – This freshman already polls behind his Republican challenger, who previously represented his district. He has given no clear indication as to how he will vote, and his office has not responded to inquiries by The Examiner.

Among those likely to vote "no" again:

Dan Boren, Okla. – Boren, who has a very conservative record, will vote no, his spokesman told The Daily Caller.

Allen Boyd, Fla. – His office did not immediately respond to The Examiner's inquiries.

Bobby Bright, Ala. – Bright, who narrowly won in a heavily Republican district in 2008, told The Daily Caller that he is voting "no."

Travis Childers, Miss. – His office did not immediately respond to The Examiner's inquiries. 

Artur Davis, Ala. – The Rev. Jesse Jackson (NOT to be confused with his son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.) accused Davis, an African-American, of being a race-traitor for voting "no." But he is running for governor, and not only does he plan to vote "no" again, but he promised to leave the campaign trail if necessary and return to Washington to do so. (An earlier version of this post mis-attributed the derogatory quote to the younger Jackson -- I regret the error.)

Chet Edwards, Tex. – He told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that he will vote "no."

Parker Griffith, Ala. – After the November vote, he switched parties and became a Republican. Good luck changing his mind.

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, S.D. – She told the Rapid City Journal she is a "no" vote.

Larry Kissell, N.C. – He told The Daily Caller that he is a "no" vote.

Frank Kratovil, Md. – A freshman in a tough rematch for re-election, Kratovil told the Annapolis Capital last week that he will vote "no," if the House is asked to pass the Senate version of the health care bill.

Dennis Kucinich, Ohio – Kucinich voted against the House bill because he wants a single-payer system or nothing. He is considered likely to vote against it again. Then again, he was also pro-life until the moment he decided to run for president.

Jim Marshall, Ga. – He told the Daily Caller that ObamaCare will bankrupt the country. He's a "no."

Eric Massa, N.Y. – Here's one Democrat who cannot be turned. He resigned from the House under a cloud of scandal, and over the weekend angrily accused Democratic leaders of railroading him because he voted “no” last time. He might have flipped if he'd stayed, but we'll never know. 

Mike McIntyre, N.C. – He participated in a December event in which members of Congress prayed for the failure of ObamaCare.

Mike McMahon, N.Y. – A Democrat representing Republican Staten Island, McMahon told the Staten Island Advance last week that he will vote "no."

Charles Melancon, La. – He is locked in an uphill battle to unseat Republican Sen. David Vitter that goes from hard to hopeless if he changes his vote to "yes."

Walt Minnick, Idaho – After the Associated Press published a report that he might change and vote "yes," he called AP to say he will not be voting for this bill.

Peterson, Minn. – Peterson told Minnesota Public Radio that he will vote no.

Mike Ross, Ark. -- Ross, who at first threatened to block the House bill in committee, relented, but he then voted against it under heavy pressure from constituents. He told The Daily Caller that he is a definite "no" vote. 

Heath Shuler, N.C. – He told a local newspaper he will vote against any attempt to pass health care using reconciliation.

Gene Taylor, Miss. – One of the most conservative Democrats in the House, Taylor is among those least likely to bend. Although not definitive, his recent statements about the bill in his district give a strong impression that he is a "no" vote, and his office tells The Examiner that this impression is correct. "He does not support the bill," his spokesman said.

The Sewall-Belmont house is one of the hottest places in the city for rich D.C. insiders to canoodle and raise cash at $1000-a-plate dinners, and — good news!—it's funded with your tax dollars. The funds can be funneled to Sewall-Belmont because it's also a museum of women's history and rights, and who could oppose that?

But instead of a symbol for women's advancement, in some cases it's become a symbol of women's mutual back-scratching in the interest of special interests. Sen. Mary Landrieu got an award from teh Sewall-Belmont House, and later made sure the house got a $1 million earmark. Hope and change! Watch Reason TV's report:

Meanwhile, Rep. Jeff Flake continues his usually lonely crusade against earmarks. The politics of this election year may earn him some company, however:

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is asking House Republicans to sign a petition that would force a vote in the Conference on a yearlong earmark moratorium for GOP Members.

“The explosion of earmarking during our years in control contributed greatly to the tarnishing of our reputation for fiscal discipline in the eyes of the taxpayer,” Flake wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter. “The time is now to send a clear and decisive message to taxpayers from coast to coast.”

Flake began circulating the petition, which calls for Republicans to adopt an earmark ban before the March 19 deadline for submitting appropriations requests, during a meeting of the Republican Study Committee last week.

A Flake spokesman said the Arizona Republican already has 17 of the 50 Republican signatures necessary to force the Conference to meet and discuss the moratorium.

I have no idea what this means, but it seems to mean something when Fannie Mae and AIG, both owned by the federal government, spike at the same time while the market remains flat. (Via ClusterStock).

Yesterday, on Neil Cavuto's Fox News show, I cautioned that Democratic Rep. Eric Massa's (N.Y.) accusation that he was being drummed out over health care cannot be taken at face value. Among other things, I noted that given the secrecy that surrounds House Ethics investigations, we have no idea whether he was actually being investigated for what he claimed on the radio was the offending incident.

Well, this afternoon the Washington Post has the scoop confirming that there's much more going on here, and that conservatives would be unwise to make Massa a cause celebre:

Former Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) has been under investigation for allegations that he groped multiple male staffers working in his office, according to three sources familiar with the probe.

The nanny state runs amok again. Breweries haven't paid some obscure $75 licensing fee in Pennsylvania, so the state takes it out on the businesses that otherwise legally bought the beer:

More than a dozen armed State Police officers conducted simultaneous raids last week on three popular Philadelphia bars known for their wide beer selections. The cops confiscated hundreds of bottles of expensive ales and lagers, now in State Police custody at an undisclosed location.

The alleged offense: Although the bar owners had bought the beer legally from licensed Pennsylvania distributors and had paid all the necessary taxes, the police claimed that nobody had registered the precise names of the beers with the state Liquor Control Board - a process that requires the brewers or their importers to pay a $75 registration fee for each product they want to sell in Pennsylvania.

Based on a complaint from someone the State Police refuse to identify, three teams of officers converged last Thursday on the three bars, run by Leigh Maida and her husband, Brendan Hartranft. Checking their inventories against the state's official list of more than 2,800 brands, the cops seized four kegs and 317 bottles, totaling 60.9 gallons of beer, according to police calculations.

Have to love that "Based on a complaint from someone the State Police refuse to identify..." Who on earth is making a complaint about an obscure $75 licensing fee? Or more likely the police or liquor control authorities made it up to to justify the over reach. 

2010 Election in Depth

• Arkansas

• Arizona

• Colorado

• California

• Delaware

• Florida

• Illinois

• Indiana 

• Kentucky

• Nevada

• New Hampshire

• New York

• North Carolina

• North Dakota

• North Carolina

• Ohio

• Pennsylvania

• Texas

• Washington

• Wisconsin

Gov. Charlie Crist, R, once the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for Senate, is now trailing conservative Marco Rubio by margins as large as his former lead. And it can't help that he is running a purely negative campaign.

Not satisfied with sending surrogates to make negative attacks on his opponent -- which is what smart campaigns do -- Crist actually appeared on one of the nation's top cable news shows to accuse Rubio of getting his back waxed.

The video follows:

With First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign against childhood obesity, talk of punitive new "fat taxes," and former President Clinton's successful campaign to get public schools to remove sugary drinks from vending machines, one might easily get the impression that government has only recently discovered that too many Americans are over-weight.

But we've been here before. In fact, a big reason why we're here today is because government went on an anti-fat campaign back in the 1970s. Remember the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "diet pyramid"?

I was reminded of this fact recently while reading "The South Beach Diet." (Yes, I, too, am fighting the battle of the bulge and my doctor told me to read it and heed it. And I am.)

Anyway, I was reading along and chanced upon this passage about how the federal government arrived at the low-fat dietary guidelines issued by federal officials back in the day. Those federal guidelines assumed all dietary fats were evil:

"There was also a political component to the low-fat guidelines - a kind of 'nutritional correctness' not unlike political correctness of recent years. The role that a Senate committee chaired by George McGovern played in the writing of our national dietary guidelines was brilliantly documented by journalist Gary Taubes in the journal Science in March 2001.

"The McGovern committee was originally chartered to fight malnutrition, but in the 1970s it switched to a new goal - the prevention of over-nutrition. The campaign started with a preconceived notion: Fat was inherently bad, and our over-indulgence in it was the major cause of obesity and heart disease in the United States.

"The committee also tended to suspect that those who did not believe that fat was Public Enemy Number One were being unduly influenced by the beef, egg, or dairy industry. The bottom line is that low total fat, high carbohydrate became the orthodoxy, despite the lack of proof that such a diet would improve overall health."

And the winner is?

"How has America done since the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet recommendations? We've gotten fatter and fatter. In addition, adult-onset diabetes, a sure sign of unhealth blood chemistry, has become widespread."

In other words, America's obesity today is a direct product of following what the government told us to do the last time the politicians and bureaucrats decided the rest of us are too stupid to figure it out on our own.

The politicians and bureaucrats aren't the only factor, of course. We tend to exercise too little, eat out too often at restaurants that compete to see who can load up the biggest portions, sit on our keysters playing computer games or working on laptops, etc. etc.

But there is no doubt the government played a major role in creating the problem Michelle Obama and many others in government are now working to solve. As with so many other ills our politicians and bureaucrats set out to cure, they appear to have achieved just about exactly the opposite of what they promised.

Hey, that ought to give us all a real confidence boost if Obamacare passes. Right?

Colorado's Democratic legislature and governor thought they were being clever. By putting the screws to online retailers, they could reap millions of dollars in tax revenues from items sold over the Internet and fill the budget gaps created by their failure to control spending and plan for hard economic times.

So they imposed new rules designed to bludgeon retailers into compliance. Sorry, but no dice:

Amazon.com Inc. cut ties Monday with Colorado online businesses that help it sell products because of a new state law aimed at getting out-of-state, online retailers to collect sales tax.

2010 Election in Depth

• Arkansas

• Arizona

• Colorado

• California

• Delaware

• Florida

• Illinois

• Indiana 

• Kentucky

• Nevada

• New Hampshire

• New York

• North Carolina

• North Dakota

• North Carolina

• Ohio

• Pennsylvania

• Texas

• Washington

• Wisconsin

The move hurts businesses — many of them small, home-based operations — that earn money by using their Web sites and blogs to link customers to online retailers. Colorado has at least 4,200 such businesses, known as affiliates or associates, accounting for about 5,000 jobs, and most of them rely on Amazon to some degree, according to their trade group, the Performance Marketing Association.

The group's executive director, Rebecca Madigan, said some get only about 10 percent of their revenue from Amazon but others are totally reliant on it.

According to the wishful numbers on Recovery.Gov, the stimulus package "created or saved" 9,300 jobs in Colorado. So with the stroke of a pen, the state's Democrats have destroyed more than half of them -- only this time the jobs are for real.

Republicans in the state legislature opposed the bill, predicting that this very thing would happen. Years ago, former Republican Gov. Bill Owens argued, and I think well, that out-of-state online retailers don't use state services the same way brick-and-mortar stores use them, and therefore should not have to pay all of the same taxes. (To the extent that they use roads to deliver their products, their delivery vendors pay gasoline taxes to the state already.) But right now, with public-sector unions driving states into penury, Colorado's Democrats are eager to reach for every available straw in the quest to fund their programs.

Democratic lawmakers, including Gov. Bill Ritter, criticized Amazon for cutting off affiliates, with some calling it "corporate bullying."..."They've done nothing here but spit in our face," Senate Majority Leader John Morse said.

There's nothing more pathetic than the big bully who whines about being bullied by a small bully.

One victim of this new law -- a self-described supporter of Ritter -- writes on his blog:

I’m especially disappointed in the Governor’s statement – it’s completely tone deaf to the actual issue and what Amazon is clearly stating.  I’ve heard several people saying “Amazon is the problem” or "well – this is good – now people will buy locally.”  Neither of these statements is valid – Amazon behaved like a rational company in the face of government regulation that had no upside for them and substantial downside.  Also, this has zero impact on consumer purchasing activity as this doesn’t impact the end customer of Amazon products in any way.

Rather, the many small businesses and solo entrepreneurs who make money off of Amazon’s affiliate program just lost a revenue stream (which, by the way, is used to employ people and pay state taxes.)  Colorado just got a big black eye in their historical effort to be a place that is friendly to business, especially high growth technology companies.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., made news Monday by appearing open to using budget reconciliation to pass president Obama's health care package. She told an Associated Press reporter she wanted to see what is included in the package before deciding. On Tuesday morning, she either had a change of heart or didn't really mean to that she would consider the parliamentary tactic, which would allow the Senate to pass the bill with 51 votes instead of the usual 60.

Lincoln, who rushed past a group of reporters and into the Senate chamber, turned around long enough to say she would not support such a move. Her statement Monday would have completely contradicted an earlier pledge to fight any effort to pass the bill with 51 votes.

Lincoln is fighting a tough re-election race and is lagging behind in the polls. She recenrtly drew a primary challenger from the Left in state Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., discounted charges made by former Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., that he was forced to resign because of his "no" vote on health care reform.

Hoyer, at his weekly press conference Tuesday, called the allegations "absurd" and "absolutely untrue."

Massa stands accused of sexually harassing a male staffer. He resigned Monday, and told a local radio station his crime was not harassment, but opposition to the Democrats' health care bill.

If you think that somehow they didn’t come after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote on the health care bill, then ladies and gentleman, you live in a world that is so innocent, as not to understand what is going on in Washington," Massa told the station.

Hoyer said there was no relationship between Massa's departure and the health care reform bill. The House ethics committee is investigating the sexual harassment charges.