In her newest article for Townhall.com, Amy Oliver asks an important question: can you be an advocate for the poor AND for “green” energy simultaneously? Her answer is: absolutely not.

Poverty rates have been rising over the last decade. Even in states like ours that claim to be renewable energy meccas.

…Colorado, home of the New Energy Economy and an aggressive renewable energy mandate, now has 40,000 fewer jobs than in 2000 with 900,000 more residents, the highest rates of unemployment in 28 years, and the median salary remains at the same level it was in 2000. The wage gap is considerable between black and Hispanic households, which make $20,000 less than the state’s median household income of $54,000.

No question, times are tough. Especially for the poorest folks among us. This makes for a rock/hard place situation for those on the Left. They promote themselves as champions of the poor and downtrodden. They claim to be the voice for the voiceless. Yet at the same time, they push aggressively for green energy in America. These positions become diametrically opposed when you consider the effects of our green energy policies.

Take for example our renewable energy mandate (RPS). The mandate in Colorado is 30%. This means that 30% of the electric power in our state must come from renewables. Whether you want it or not and whether you can afford it or not is beside the point. You’re paying a good chunk of your income for someone else’s wind and solar fantasies. This acts like a regressive tax on the poor. Why? Well, I’ll let Amy explain.

From 2011 to 2020, the RPS “will cost Colorado citizens an additional $11.78 billion over conventional power. By 2020, the RPS will force working families to an average of $337 more per year. By 2020, the RPS will cost commercial businesses an average of $2,360 per year. By 2020, the RPS will cost industrial businesses an average of $43,367 per year.

Renewable energy is simply not efficient. Unfortunately, our renewable energy mandate forces the least capable of us to fork over more of their money for energy. In many cases, it’s nothing more than a wealth transfer from poor to rich. How can you say you care about the poor when you force high energy costs on them en masse?

The working poor cannot afford this green agenda. The unemployed cannot afford this green agenda. If you want jobs in Colorado, the last thing you should want is green energy.

By 2020 “Colorado will lose an average of 18,380 jobs. Wages will be reduced by an average of $1,269 per worker. Total “annual real disposable income will fall by $1.87 billion.

That doesn’t sound very poor-friendly does it?

It’s a simple law of economics: when you prevent prices from rationing goods and services, something else must ration them. During the Nixon administration’s price controls, it was long lines and waiting that rationed gasoline. When you expand “free” medical services – like Obamacare does – price is no longer a factor. Therefore, something (or someone) else must do the rationing.

Washington state knows a thing or two about rationing medical services. According to this Investor’s Business Daily article, Washington has had to put a cap on how many times they allow Medicaid recipients to visit the emergency room each year. In this case, it is the political class who is doing the rationing.

Our Health Care Policy Center director Linda Gorman reminds us in the article that our health care system is politically controlled. Thus, politicians are in control of medical decisions and they are the ones doing the rationing like in Washington state.

When health care systems are politically controlled, politicians direct resources away from the seriously ill who need expensive advanced medical care, to the healthy voter,” said Linda Gorman, a senior fellow at the conservative Independence Institute. “Relatively few voters need advanced care, so catering to the healthy makes political sense.

Good point Linda. When you allow the political class to make medical decisions, you have to be honest who they have in mind when making those decisions.

Makes you sick, doesn’t it. (pun intended)

In one of the most informative op-eds I have ever read, our Research Director and Law guru Dave Kopel discusses the Obamacare cases that could potentially be heard by the Supreme Court in the upcoming session, which begins in October 2011 and will end in June 2012. We’ve got several chances at getting a “writ of certiorari” to challenge Obamacare’s constitutionality and Dave is certain one of them will get the proverbial nod. As Dave explains, a writ of certiorari is the legal term used to describe the Supreme Court’s action in picking up a case to be heard.

Perhaps most interesting to me in the article is when Dave points out that one of the cases addresses an area of constitutionality that none of the others does. In most instances, the legal challenge is meant to take on Obamacare’s individual mandate via the Commerce Power and/or the Necessary and Proper Clause. But in Seven-Sky v. Holder, the plaintiffs are challenging the mandate on First Amendment grounds! Turns out, the mandate to buy “Western style” health insurance infringes on some people’s religious freedoms. I’ll let Dave explain,

All the Seven-Sky plaintiffs are individuals who, for one reason or another, have religious objections to using the standard services of western medicine. The PPACA contains no exemption for such people… They argue that the mandate violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion, as protected by a federal statute called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). That 1993 law provides that the federal “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

Isn’t that fascinating? Obamacare has some waivers and exemptions – mostly for friends of the White House and some religious groups like the Amish – but none for these folks. It will be interesting to see which of these cases the Supreme Court decides to take up. I will be doubly interested if the SCOTUS decides to take this particular First Amendment case.

(Cartoon courtesy of Ben Hummel at PolitixCartoons.com)

Both sides of the aisle talk about the “echo chamber” and how important it is to have one that can out-trumpet the other. An echo chamber, for those wondering what I’m talking about, is an effect achieved through coordinating the efforts of various communication outlets working together to spread a message. For example, a blogger uncovers this amazing story that reveals X, then a bigger blogger picks up on it and writes about X, which in turn catches the eye of the two guys running Complete Colorado therefore tipping off more bloggers, and then news sources are forced to acknowledge X and cover it. If you’re lucky enough, Drudge eventually picks up on X and alerts the whole nation to it. When small time and big time news outlets successfully come together to advance a certain narrative, the echo chamber effect can be massive and influential – in other words – massively influential.

Typically the left has had the bigger and better echo chamber. Although those on the center-right have come together in the last couple of years to create a rather effective machine of their own. (Take a look at Peoples Press Collective and Complete Colorado for example). Also typical of an echo chamber is its do-it-yourself mentality and grassroots beginnings.

Knowing all of this, you might be as surprised as I am to find out that the left’s echo chamber has extended far beyond any DIY or grassroots effort. Like waking up one morning to find you’ve got a winning lottery ticket on your nightstand, the left has hit the echo chamber’s version of Powerball. In addition to their successful Colorado Democracy Alliance (CODA) organization, they’ve also got the biggest, baddest slugger in the big leagues batting clean-up for them – the establishment media.

Imagine the clout an echo chamber could have if any message they wanted out there and popularized would be parroted by the establishment media. Let’s just say for the sake of argument, that someone, somewhere wanted to trumpet to the world that skyrocketing health care costs had nothing to do with ObamaCare. Maybe the story would originate from a press release sent from an official department of the state of Colorado. Perhaps a local and usually fair and balanced business news outlet would report on it. Then maybe a local, leftist news website would trumpet the press release as God’s spoken words, along with their lefty affiliates here and here. Suddenly, the establishment newspaper of record cannot abstain from parroting the narrative themselves in their own piece. Even silly news outlets join the party with their own facsimiles.

If, and this is one mighty large if, that ever happened here in Colorado, we at the Independence Institute would not take it lying down. We would probably ask our Health Care Policy Center gurus Linda Gorman and Brian Schwartz to respond to the insane propaganda being trumpeted from sea to shining sea. Brian Schwartz might respond by pointing to something like this from the Cato Institute. Health Care Policy Center director Linda Gorman might respond, being the brilliant genius she is, with something along the lines of this:

• John Deere, Verizon, Caterpillar, McDonald’s, Boeing, and AARP, among others, both operate insurance plans and have publicly stated that ObamaCare is going to raise their costs by hundreds of millions of dollars. They have acted on their claims. Show me the numbers.
• Commissioner Morrison says that the Division of Insurance is “in the process of reviewing rates.”  Still, she knows that federal health reforms have “contributed from zero to a maximum of 5 percent of those increases. It’s not the primary cause for increasing rates.”
• Perhaps an explanation of how Commissioner Morrison arrived at her conclusion will have to wait until the Division spends the $1 million it got from the Obama Administration to, in the words of Governor Ritter, “educate consumers about health insurance.”
• Milliman estimates that HMO increases will be 9.0% for January 2011 renewal and 11.0% for PPO renewal. So, if the ObamaCare increase is “just” 5% of those increases it is responsible for half or more of the 2011 premium increases. Perhaps she means that it is just 5% of 9%, or (.05)*(.09) which equals .0045% and, given my premiums, is equal to $3.00 a month for three people. Her analysis can see such a small amount? It is truly powerful and we must bow before it.
• AARP, Caterpillar, Boeing, Aetna, John Deere, Verizon and McDonalds are raising deductibles and co-pays or dropping their health insurance plans. While these changes may not be reflected in premiums, they are reflected in higher co-pays and deductibles. They are also reflected by the fact that the availability of child only health insurance policies and mini-med policies has been severely compromised by the advent of ObamaCare. This is a cost, but it conveniently isn’t included in “premiums.”
• The Division claims that most of these are due to medical cost increases—does she think that ObamaCare has no effect on medical costs? Remember the device taxes? The health information technology requirements? The slacker mandate? Guaranteed issue requirements? The required increases in vision and dental coverage for the kiddies? They don’t take effect until later? Yep, we all know that businesses don’t anticipate cost increases.

But really… who knows? I can’t predict what would happen if the left really did have the mainstream media parroting their talking points. It’s a good thing we don’t have to worry about anything like that right?

If you didn’t get a chance to attend our Net Neutrality event yesterday afternoon at the swank Pinnacle Club downtown, there’s a good chance you tuned in via our live-stream. We not only had a great turnout at the event, we also hit some fantastic numbers on our live-stream. Additionally, the press took notice of this important topic and our event made the rounds at the Denver Post, Denver Daily News, and the Colorado News Agency.

Live Broadcast by Ustream.TV

Just published on-line this morning is the above Backgrounder from the Heritage Foundation. My coauthors are Theodore Bromund  and Ray Walser, of Heritage. We argue that the CIFTA gun control convention, which was drafted by the Organization of American States, and which President Obama has urged the Senate to ratify, would harm First and Second Amendment rights. We suggest that the convention offers no practical benefits to the United States.