Monthly Archives: August 2010

Asshat of the Day

Apologies for not posting one of these for yesterday – I was caught up in all of the primary election returns from around the country (yay Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper in CO).

No contest for today’s award – Congressman Charles Rangel.  Isn’t it ironic that in 1970, he beat scandal-burdened Adam Clayton Powell and now scandal-burdened Charlie faces Adam Clayton Powell IV in next month’s primary.  Rangel is accused of using his office for personal gain, much like ACP was.  Rangel should do the honorable thing and resign & pull-out of next month’s primary.  He’s no better than Bob Ney, Jim Traficant, or Jack Abramoff.

Wednesday Open Thread

Welcome to your Wednesday open thread. Today is a special day because it’s my birthday. Happy birthday to me! I’m celebrating by working like a normal workday.

If you enjoy food & cooking, you might enjoy my husband’s new food blog: ZOMG Food Pr0n! Check it out.

Republicans are taking a bit of a beating for wanting to meddle with the Constitution. This time it’s Fox News analysts Andrew Napolitano taking Republicans to the proverbial woodshed:

Today, Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano slammed Republicans trying to change the 14th amendment to end birthright citizenship. When asked about the effort to change the amendment, Napolitano derided it as “nothing but political chatter.” He then went on to castigate the Republicans who are advocating for ending birthright citizenship, saying, “These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not! All of it not part of it!”:

NAPOLITANO: The law has been upheld uniformly since 1868 and without exception. And we start with a couple of basics. The Congress cannot change the constitution of the 14th amendment on its own. It takes 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states to change the amendment. […] so this is nothing but political chatter by those who are concerned understandably by problems at the border. […] I can’t imagine that there’d be a consensus to change the 14th amendment. […]

HEMMER: But if the [Birthright Citizenship Act] were carried out, you had 100 co-sponsors about a year ago, it would require at least one parent to be a US citizen for a baby to become an american citizen at birth. If you were to enact the BCA as some refer to it, is that a way to get around the 14th amendment, and get done what people like John Cornyn, and John Kyl and John Mccain, and we heard John Boehner are trying to do.

NAPOLITANO: No! That would not be a a way around it. There is no way to get around the 14th amendment. These people took an oath to uphold the Constitution whether they agree with it or not! All of it not part of it! The Supreme Court has said you cannot take privileges or benefits away from a child because of a crime committed by the parent. Therefore everybody born here is an American citizen, no matter what their parents’ status was at their birth.

Napolitano makes very good points here. Amending the Constitution is extremely difficult and extremely unlikely. It’s all about wedge issues and Republicans know they’ll never have to act on it. Isn’t it interesting though that Republican amendments to the Constitution are all about limiting people’s rights? Like banning flag burning, limiting marriage and now limiting birthright citizenship.

I hope Democrats are listening to digby.

I do hope the Democrats are paying close attention to this because it might just save their bacon if they play their cards right. Here’s the lugubrious GOP star Mike Pence on the passage of the emergency state teacher, cop and firefighter funding:

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) picked up on that theme today on ABC’s Top Line, calling it a “massive state bailout.” When host Z. Byron Wolf asked what the GOP plan would be to help teachers who are about to lose their jobs — particularly the 3,600 in Indiana, Pence didn’t have much to offer:

PENCE: Well, look I’m married to a school teacher. My wife spent more than a decade in a public school classroom. So I love teachers! Teachers, firefighters, policemen are all Americans and they all know that the economic policies of bailouts and handouts have failed to create jobs.

can you spot the fear and dissonance there? I knew that you could.

I’m telling you, this is where the vulnerable underbelly of their “just say no” campaign. They are voting against nice, white, suburban middle class Americans this time (along with nice brown and black suburban middle class Americans) with this crusade. And going after teachers, cops and firefighters is a very, very dangerous thing to do. And as I wrote before, the Democrats should throw it right in their face.

Republicans are against jobs for “special interests” like teachers, police and firemen. They’re pretty incoherent about this too – they throw a hissy fit if it’s not “paid for” (although tax cuts are free) and even when it’s paid for they still vote against. It’s almost like they want the economy to be bad or something.

PPP Delaware Poll: Republicans

One of the disappointing things about the newly-released PPP Poll was that the Republican primaries were not polled. There’s plenty of raw numbers to look at though. Can we get any hints of how the primaries might go from the raw data? Let’s take a look.

PPP has broken down the approval numbers several ways. One way was by who the voter chose for president in the 2008 election. How do the Republican candidates stack up?

McCain voters Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure/Net Favorable (Favorable-Unfavorable)
Mike Castle – 54/31/16/+12
Christine O’Donnell – 32/29/39/+3
Michele Rollins – 22/22/56/0
Glenn Urquhart – 23/18/59/+5

This crude analysis shows that Castle beats O’Donnell handily. O’Donnell’s name recognition is still low so she definitely has room to move up however her favorables are low. The Rollins/Urquhart is a toss-up with a slight lean towards Urquhart. Both Rollins and Urquhart are both largely unknown so this race is quite fluid.

PPP also broke down the numbers by self-reported ideology. Republicans in Delaware would probably label themselves as either “moderate” or “conservative” (I realize that there’s a lot of overlap of moderates with both Independents and Democrats).

Conservatives Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure/Net Favorable
Mike Castle – 46/39/15/+7
Christine O’Donnell – 37/23/40/+14
Michele Rollins – 21/19/59/+2
Glenn Urquhart – 25/14/61/+9

O’Donnell has her best showing among conservatives but still trails Castle. Despite rumors to the contrary, Castle is popular among conservatives. Urquhart has a clear advantage with conservatives over Rollins.

What about moderates?
Moderates Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure/Net Favorable
Mike Castle – 56/25/18/+31
Christine O’Donnell – 15/38/47/-23
Michele Rollins – 16/27/57/-9
Glenn Urquhart – 12/21/67/-9

Castle is beloved by self-reported moderates. All other Republican candidates are in negative territory, which shows why Republicans have trouble winning in Delaware. Despite having the News Journal declare her a moderate, Rollins is clearly not catching on. She has the same rating with mderates as Glenn Urquhart. I assume Urquhart’s negatives will go up with moderates once they watch Urquhart’s Nazi comments.

One last analysis – how do the Republican candidates rate among Republicans?

Republicans Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure/Net Favorable
Mike Castle – 60/25/16/+35
Christine O’Donnell – 34/29/37/+5
Michele Rollins – 27/17/57/+10
Glenn Urquhart – 23/17/59/+6

Castle is popular with Republicans no matter which way you look at the numbers. O’Donnell has an uphill climb. Rollins finally comes out ahead of Urquhart in this match-up so I call their race a toss-up as of now.

What advice do you give each of these candidates? My advice:
Castle – Ignore O’Donnell, keep doing what you’re doing
O’Donnell – Go relentlessly negative to drive down Castle’s numbers. Be sure to get your base support of conservatives out to vote. If you have money, now would be a good time to spend it.
Rollins – Quit sitting on your load of cash and start spending some, otherwise you could lose to Urquhart. Since Urquhart is probably the conservatives’ candidate you have nothing to lose by moving to the left and appealing to moderates. Try to link yourself to Castle more aggressively.
Urquhart – Spend money to raise your name recognition & profile & make sure conservatives come to vote in the primaries

Solving the Marriage Conundrum

Since it appears that neither the left nor the right are going to agree on who is entitled to enjoy the bliss of married life, I have a solution – get the State out of the marriage and divorce business.  No more state-issued marriage licenses (think of the money we’ll be saving taxpayers by getting rid of the Clerks of the Peace and the employees that run those offices in Delaware).  If you want to get married, go to your respective house of worship and let your priest/pastor/rabbi/imam/shaman perform the ceremony.  If your religion prohibits same-sex marriage, oh well.  If it prohibits mixed-faith marriages, oh well.  If it prohibits inter-racial marriage, oh well.  Since the teabaggers and other right-wing fanatics claim that marriage is something solemn and holy, let the religious institutions take over responsibility for saying who can marry in their church/synagogue/mosque. No more civil marriage!

As for divorce, get the State out of that business, too.  No more divorce courts.  If your religion prohibits divorce, well, I guess you’re stuck.  If it does, then you go to whomever to terminate your marriage.  As for the division of property, you’d better have a good pre-nup, or it will be left up to your religion’s own devices.

See, problem solved.

Tuesday Open Thread

Welcome to the Tuesday edition of your semi-daily open thread. I hope you’re having a fabulously wonderful Tuesday.

Today is primary day in several states: Minnesota, Connecticut and Colorado as well as a run-off election for the GOP nomination for Georgia governor.

In Minnesota, the governor’s race is interesting. Tom Emmer, who thought that waiters should take a pay cut, is the likely Republican nominee. On the Democratic side, former Senator Mark Dayton is the likely nominee but he’s taking on two challengers, Margaret Anderson Kelliher and Matt Entenza.

Connecticut has gubernatorial primaries for governor and U.S. Senate. In the Democratic gubernatorial primary, almost-Senator Ned Lamont takes on Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy. The last poll had this as a toss-up with Lamont with a small lead (45-42). On the Republican side there’s a 3-way race between Tom Foley, Lt. Gov. Mike Fedele and Oz Griebel. Foley is leading 38-30-17 with a lot of undecideds. On the Senate side AG Richard Blumenthal has no challenger on the Democratic side and the on-again, off-again candidacy of Rob Simmons may be off-again for good. Linda McMahon is expected to win this primary.

Colorado has the most intriguing match-ups. Appointed incumbent Senator Michael Bennet is being challenged by Andrew Romanoff. Romanoff has come on strong in the last few weeks, he was endorsed by Bill Clinton and a funding scandal has hurt Bennet – Bennet approved a deal while Superintendent of Denver public schools which has turned out to be a very bad deal. The last poll gave Bennet a small lead 49-43 but Colorado has mail-in ballots so the scandal may have been too late to help Romanoff. On the Republican side, Ken Buck (birthers are dumbasses) and former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton (establishment pick) are tied. On the Senate side, crazy Dan Maes (bicycles lead to abortion) and wounded Scott McInnis are also tied. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is unopposed for the Democratic governor nomination.

For the Georgia run-off Palin-endorsed “mama grizzly” Karen Handel takes on Gingrich-endorsed Congressman Nathan Deal. Three different polls have either a small Handel lead, a small Deal lead or a tie. This one is a toss-up.

So lots of suspense tonight watching the primary results come in.

Delaware PPP Poll Results

PPP has just released their poll results for Delaware. There are a lot of results, so I’m sure this will lead to a lot of blog posts. Here’s the headline numbers:

DE-Sen

Public Policy Polling (PDF) for Daily Kos. 8/7-8. Registered voters. MoE 4% (No trendlines)

If the candidates for US Senate this fall were Republican Mike Castle and Democrat Chris Coons, who would you vote for?

All Dem GOP Ind
Chris Coons (D) 35 55 12 23
Mike Castle (R) 48 30 75 50
Undecided 17 15 13 27

Chris Coons (D) 44 67 17 29
Christine O’Donnell (R) 37 16 67 40
Undecided 19 16 15 31

Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure

Coons 31/31/39
Dem 42/25
GOP 19/40
Ind 23/30

Castle 51/32/18
Dem 47/35
GOP 60/25
Ind 49/32

O’Donnell’s Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure %s: 23/34/44

The latest numbers are very similar to the Rasmussen numbers from the last two weeks. Castle has a solid lead, but remains under 50%. Coons is still largely unknown and has more room to grow.

DE-AL

Carney leads Rollins 48-31 and leads Urquhart 48-30. Carney leads either Rollins of Urquhart in every county.

Carney’s Favorable/unfavorable/Not Sure: 31/24/45
Rollins F/U/NS: 18/25/57
Urquhart F/U/NS: 15/20/65

None of the candidates have extremely high name recognition. Carney’s is the best, but it’s still below that of Chris Coons despite his stint as Lt. Governor.

Other favorable/unfavorable/not sure from the survey:
President Obama: 50/44/6
Senator Carper: 47/33/20
Senator Kaufman: 37/30/33
Governor Markell: 50/32/18

So the winner of the popularity contest is *drumroll* Mike Castle with +19% approval! Close behind is Governor Markell with +18, followed by Tom Carper with +14, Senator Kaufman with +7 and President Obama with +6.

Rand Paul’s Drug-Fueled Crime Spree

Rand Paul comes across as a boring candidate. Crazy, but boring. At the Fancy Farm Picnic Rand Paul apparently gave a snoozer of a speech about the U.S. tax code (hint: it’s long!). Rand Paul manages to be boring, wrong and crazy all at the same time. Apparently Rand Paul has another side: stoner kidnapper. This story comes from a GQ profile of Rand Paul:

But when Paul showed up in Waco, he didn’t conform to type. According to several of his former Baylor classmates, he became a member of a secret society called the NoZe Brotherhood, which was a refuge for atypical Baylor students. “You could have taken 90 percent of the liberal thinkers at Baylor and found them in this small group,” recalls Marc Burckhardt, one of Paul’s former NoZe Brothers. Sort of a cross between Yale’s Skull & Bones and Harvard’s Lampoon, the NoZe existed to torment the Baylor administration, which it accomplished through pranks and its satirical newspaper The Rope. The group especially enjoyed tweaking the school’s religiosity. “We aspired to blasphemy,” says John Green, another of Paul’s former NoZe Brothers.

A secret society full of liberal thinkers? The penalty for belonging to this organization was expulsion if you were caught.

The strangest episode of Paul’s time at Baylor occurred one afternoon in 1983 (although memories about all of these events are understandably a bit hazy, so the date might be slightly off), when he and a NoZe brother paid a visit to a female student who was one of Paul’s teammates on the Baylor swim team. According to this woman, who requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist, “He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. They’d been smoking pot.” After the woman refused to smoke with them, Paul and his friend put her back in their car and drove to the countryside outside of Waco, where they stopped near a creek. “They told me their god was ‘Aqua Buddha’ and that I needed to bow down and worship him,” the woman recalls. “They blindfolded me and made me bow down to ‘Aqua Buddha’ in the creek. I had to say, ‘I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.’ At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no.”

Nearly 30 years later, the woman is still trying to make sense of that afternoon. “They never hurt me, they never did anything wrong, but the whole thing was kind of sadistic. They were messing with my mind. It was some kind of joke.” She hadn’t actually realized that Paul wound up leaving Baylor early. “I just know I never saw Randy after that—for understandable reasons, I think.”

Some of the details of this story are amusing but overall I don’t think kidnapping and tormenting a fellow student falls under the category of “prank.” Rand Paul’s campaign has issued several non-denials and is now considering legal options.

In a previous statement about the story sent to TPM, Benton dismissed the GQ piece, saying “National Enquirer-type stories about Dr. Paul’s teenage years should be left to the tabloids where they belong.”

It should be noted that Paul’s campaign has not said the substance of the story is wrong.

Asshats of the Day

In keeping with the thread on Ted Olsen totally destroying Chris Wallace on FAUX Entertainment, today’s Asshats of the Day are Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (DE has their own chapter of these group – Elaine Benes, I mean, Christine O’Donnell is a member), and the American Family Foundation.  FRC (or is the FURCK) and AFA are notoriously anti-gay organizations, all in the name of saving our White, Christian nation.  Both Perkins and the AFA have said that Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself because he is gay.  According to Huffington Post, Walker has never spoken openly about being gay.

Perkins was on Face the Nation Sunday and said “I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows — and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that — who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments.  This is far from over.   Had this guy been … an evangelical preacher in his past there would have been cries for him to step down from this case,” he added. “So I do think [his homosexuality] has a bearing on the case. But this is not without precedent.”  Um, Tony, that’s why we have an independent court system, to interpret the law.  And this judge, appointed by your hero Ronnie Reagan, weighed the testimony and evidence and issued his ruling.  And judges have overturned referenda before.  That’s they way it goes and there’s your precedent.

And the AFA claims that Walker’s “sexual proclivity” disqualified him from hearing the case.

I really wonder what these asshats would be saying right now if Walker had upheld Prop 8?  Do you think they would have been praising the brave homosexual judge who turned his back on his own kind?

Asshats – they’re becoming a dime a dozen.

Carper Tries a Campaign Combover…Er, Makeover

The Red Phone must’ve rung in the stately Carper manse, meaning that Ed Freel was likely on the line. The conversation could well have gone like this:

Freel: “Boss, we’re not going to be able to get away with this feel good moderation we’ve been peddling for over two decades now. People have figured out that we’re both bought and paid for by the banking and insurance industries, and every other generous benefactor that has us living in the lap of luxury, including the University of Delaware, thankyouverymuch.

Carper: “@#$%^&!!”

Freel: “Relax, boss. I’ll check to see if Harry Themal’s still alive and, if so, you can sell him on the story that you have been personally and professionally wounded by the solons of the Senate who you can say no longer have the comity of the institution at heart and have betrayed your profound sense of fair play.”

Carper: “But how do I answer the question about why I’ve played this moderate card for the better part of two decades when, in fact, we’ve had this wonderful partnership with my corporate friends and/or Mike Castle?”

Freel: “Boss, it’s Harry Themal we’re talking here. He combines the best of both David Broder and Larry King. You’ll be just fine. Maybe you can even throw in a movie reference.”

Carper: “Well, all-righty, then.”

The result: This column in today’s News-Journal.

And, with that, Carper’s campaign for reelection has begun.

Monday Open Thread

Welcome to your Monday open thread. It’s Monday, so it’s back to the grind. What’s on your mind?

Surveys have found (surprise, surprise) that racial resentment is highest among people who identify themselves with the Tea Party movement:

National surveys of the Tea Party have found that explicit racist sentiment is a strong component of the tea-party make up, in addition to economic conservatism and strong Republican partisanship. The April, 2010 New York Times/CBS News national survey of Tea Party supporters found that they are:

– More than twice as likely as the general public (25% vs 11%) to believe that “the policies of the Obama administration favor blacks over whites.”

– Half as likely as the general public (16% to 31%) to believe that “white people have a better chance of getting ahead in today’s society.”

– Almost twice as likely as the general public (52% to 28%) to believe that “too much has been made of the problems facing black people” in recent years.

…

In a broad study of adults in Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and California conducted between February and March, the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race, and Sexuality (WISER) asked a number of questions about “racial resentment” — such as whether blacks don’t try hard enough or have gotten more than they deserve. Conservatives are 23 percent more likely to be racially resentful, and Republicans 15 percent more likely than Democrats. However, the institute found that this racial sentiment isn’t simply a byproduct of white conservativism:

[E]ven as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment.

It is untrue, as political commentator Dave Weigel argues, that racism in the Tea Party is merely reflective of its conservatism. The WISER study found that compared to other conservatives, Tea Party supporters are:

– 25 percent more likely to have racial resentment.

– 27 percent more likely to support racial profiling.

– 28 percent more likely to support indefinite detention without charges.

The new campaigns against building mosques is part of this same isolationist, xenophobic rhetoric. Xenophobia may be big topic right now but apparently the California Prop 8 decision is getting barely a wimper from the usual suspects on the right.

When a federal judge in California last week ruled the state’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, several political observers braced for a flood of Republican blasts on the issue that could end up resonating in campaigns nationally.

Instead, the anticipated GOP bang over the ban — known as Proposition 8 — amounted to little more than a whimper. There were angry columns and cries of protest from right-wing groups and conservative writers, but the majority of the Republican establishment kept on a bread-and-butter message — and party leaders are encouraging them not to stray.

…

In California, the two leading GOP candidates — gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman and U.S. Senate nominee Carly Fiorina — issued muted statements.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” the day after the ruling, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who opposes gay marriage, said he thought it may come up in a “subliminal” way in campaigns and moved off the topic fairly quickly.

The national committees didn’t touch it in a real way — “I haven’t been following closely,” said one Washington GOP operative who works with one of the committees. Meanwhile Republican leaders made clear their strategy is staying on jobs.

Will we get a civil war between the social conservatives and the Tea Partiers. The social conservatives are being pretty much ignored right now.

Prop 8: Ted Olson Destroys Chris Wallace

One of the interesting things about the Prop 8 trial was that the defenders of Prop 8 were so ill-prepared for their court case. The Prop 8 defenders only called 2 witnesses and one of the witnesses had their testimony completely ignored. The opponents of Prop 8 called many, many witnesses to demolish the “scientific” opposition to same sex marriage – like the myths that same sex couples are bad for children. The trial was a farce from the start because the arguments that the Prop 8 defenders had were 1) will of the people, 2) tradition and 3) religion. However, to win a case you need good lawyers and Ted Olson shows why he’s one of the best:

Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why “seven million Californians” “don’t get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either. He stressed that under our system of government, voters can’t deprive minority groups of their constitutionally guaranteed protections and reminded Wallace that in the 1960s, “Californians voted to change their constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home; the United States Supreme Court struck that down.”

When Wallace pressed the point further, likening same-sex marriage to abortion and noting that “the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working” since states had been deciding the issue on a “state-by-state basis,” Olson asked Wallace how he would like it if Fox News’ right to free speech was decided in such a manner:

OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.

Here’s some interesting speculation from Pam’s House Blend, is the Prop 8 case actually over? Both the California AG Jerry Brown and California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger have asked Judge Walker to lift the stay on the ruling and allow same sex marriages to proceed:

In a motion filed late yesterday, lawyers for the plaintiff couples and the City of San Francisco argued that marriages should be allowed to begin immediately, rather than be stayed pending appeal. One of their arguments was that an appeal might never happen. They argued this because the governmental defendants – the Governator and the once (and future!) Governor Moonbeam – are not appealing and the Yes on 8 proponents – who were let in at the trial court as intervenors – don’t have standing to appeal.

In a nutshell, from a non-lawyer, it seems that Justice Ginsburg, in the opinion to Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona (which was decided on other grounds), expressed “grave doubts” as to whether the proponents of a ballot measure had standing to appeal a federal court ruling in the absence of governmental actors making an appeal. In other words, the Yes on 8 folks might not have the right to appeal Walker’s decision.

This, apparently, is why Imperial County tried to get in on the case in the eleventh hour – the haters realized that without a government entity willing to appeal, they could be shit out of luck. But Walker shut them down, both saying they didn’t have a good reason to be let in and that they waited until after the deadline, so they really are SOL. So unless Schwarzenegger or Jerry Brown have a sudden change of heart and decide to appeal the ruling (or Imperial County convinces a higher court that they really should be in on the case) Walker’s ruling could be the final word.

“Pushing Your Produce Cart To Market Down Rutted Dirt Roads”

The headline above refers to the economic future that I’ve argued Republicans are pushing for with their cynical “all taxes are evil” schtick.

As it turns out, I was not indulging in hyperbole.

From WSJ via MYDD:

It is also amazing to me that conservatives think the world around them comes cheap. They love to complain about taxes but they don’t seem to realize to that taxes also pay for things like electric lighting and roads.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Paved roads, historical emblems of American achievement, are being torn up across rural America and replaced with gravel or other rough surfaces as counties struggle with tight budgets and dwindling state and federal revenue. State money for local roads was cut in many places amid budget shortfalls.

In Michigan, at least 38 of the 83 counties have converted some asphalt roads to gravel in recent years. Last year, South Dakota turned at least 100 miles of asphalt road surfaces to gravel. Counties in Alabama and Pennsylvania have begun downgrading asphalt roads to cheaper chip-and-seal road, also known as “poor man’s pavement.” Some counties in Ohio are simply letting roads erode to gravel.