Last November, voters soundly defeated anti-tax, anti-spending ballot initiatives in both Maine and Washington, dealing a setback to conservatives. In the same election, voters in Oregon “handily” approved ballot measures increasing taxes on the wealthy and increasing the minimum corporate tax rate, despite a serious corporation-backed opposition campaign.

But anti-government spending zealots are not done trying to force initiatives through on the ballot. For instance, in the next election Colorado voters will be faced with Amendment 61, which would prevent the state from borrowing money — any money, at all, ever — and limit local governments to borrowing for just ten years and only with voter approval.

It’s easy to see why this would be incredibly problematic. Most states, including Colorado, are prevented from running deficits, but they have to borrow money and carry debt in order to finance infrastructure projects like building schools or bridges. The Denver Post this week ran a scathing editorial pointing out the folly of Amendment 61:

Amendment 61 would stop the state from borrowing, or bonding. That means any structure or piece of infrastructure, from a new prison to replacement of an old bridge, basically would have to be paid for up front — with cash…Think in terms of your own finances. Could you afford to buy your house with cash — without financing? Imagine the prohibitively high monthly payments if you had to buy the house with a 10-year mortgage instead of the traditional 30-year.

Citizens for Tax Justice said that Amendment 61, along with two other anti-tax amendments on the Colorado ballot, “would have a disastrous impact on Coloradans’ way of life. ” In all, the measure would halt about $2 billion per year in publicly financed construction in the state.

“We won’t be able to replace structurally deficient bridges. We won’t be able to replace aging school buildings, and we won’t be able to build modern facilities at our colleges and universities,” said state Treasurer Cary Kennedy. “Do you really want us to pay cash for a school?” asked Glenn Gustafson, chief financial officer for the Colorado Springs school district. “I just think this is crazy.”

Even the state’s Republican lawmakers think Amendment 61 is nuts. “Look at that massive science building that used to be a hole in the ground on the Auraria campus. Look at my alma matter, Mesa State College, which has just exploded with growth,” said state senator Josh Penry (R). “All of those projects were done without raising taxes thanks to the creative financing structures that (Amendment) 61 would ban.”

The measure would also wreak havoc with payrolls at school districts, which “receive property-tax revenue in uneven clumps throughout the year and rely on [state financed] loans to help make ends meet until tax revenues even out in the spring.” It’s clear, then, that those pushing Amendment 61 have based it entirely on an ideology that is completely unworkable in practice.

Since BP’s oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico began, a favorite right wing talking point has been that the Jones Act — a 1920 law stipulating that commerce between U.S. ports needs to occur on U.S. ships — has been hindering the cleanup effort by forcing the federal government to reject aid from foreign nations. Conservative lawmakers and pundits have been claiming that the Obama administration is refusing to waive the Jones Act out of deference to the will of labor unions.

Earlier this month, McClatchy demolished this meme, reporting that “maritime law experts, government officials and independent researchers say that the claim is false. The Jones Act isn’t an impediment at all, they say, and it hasn’t blocked anything.” But this hasn’t stopped the drumbeat from the right-wing, with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) going so far as to say that aid from 17 countries has been rejected because of the Jones Act. “Due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in US waters,” he said.

Yesterday, on CNBC, Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute repeated this talking point, claiming that there have been several rejections of foreign aid due to the Jones Act. However, he ran into a host who had done his homework, as CNBC’s Mark Haines noted that 68 different offers of foreign cleanup help have been accepted. Haines challenged Bader to cite examples of the Jones Act causing a problem, with predictable results:

HAINES: How many rejections under the Jones Act?

BADER: I don’t know how many.

HAINES: Excuse me, Senator McCarthy, you can’t tell us how many there are? I want the facts, give us hard facts, give us evidence, not innuendo, not baseless accusations, okay? It’s offensive to intelligence. The fact is sir, you have told us there are examples of rejections and you can not name a single one.

Watch it:

Bader eventually cited one Dutch ship that was supposedly turned back due to the Jones Act. So today, Haines was back on the case, pointing out that the Dutch offer had been made before the federal government even knew there was an oil leak, and the rejection was initiated by the EPA. “It was not because of the Jones act, it was not a conspiracy to protect the unions and sacrifice the environment,” he said.

I’m pretty tough on CNBC’s team for spending most of its time shilling for big bank bonuses, tax cheats, predatory lenders, and the ultra-wealthy, while falsely scaremongering about the effects of the Obama administration agenda. But, credit where credit is due, Haines was prepared to call this nonsense for what it is: an attempt to demagogue unions and score political points off an environmental catastrophe.

(HT: ThinkProgress reader Richard)

When it returns from its July 4th recess, the Senate plans to take up the financial regulatory reform conference report, which has already been passed by the House. The death of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) has left the Democrats with 58 votes, and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has said that he will vote against the bill, meaning that three Republican votes are necessary to invoke cloture and move the bill to a final vote.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has said that she is “inclined” toward supporting the bill, while both Sens. Olympia Snower (R-ME) and Scott Brown (R-MA) are supposedly using the recess to study the bill. All three voted for the Senate’s original version of the bill

But one more Republican — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — voted for the bill in the Senate, and he is now waffling on whether or not he will support the conference report:

Sen. Charles Grassley is “very concerned” about a provision in the financial overhaul bill designed to pay for the legislation, an aide said Thursday…Mr. Grassley’s spokeswoman, Jill Kozeny, said he is “very concerned about the precedent of using the FDIC fees both as a credit to the FDIC and to count as [a way to pay for the bill], and it’s his view that TARP money ought to be used to pay down the debt and not for more spending.”

Remember, the conference committee that reconciled the House and Senate versions of the bill reopened its deliberations in order to restructure this particular fee — which used to be a straight tax on the biggest banks — following objections from Brown, Snowe, and Collins.

I would have preferred the straight fee, instead of the now roundabout way in which the bill is paid for, but I’m curious as to where Grassley would prefer to raise this money. Does he simply want to add the cost of the bill to the deficit? Or does he want to cut some services somewhere, thereby forcing American citizens to pay for the implementation of a bill correcting Wall Street’s ills.

The Iowa Bankers Association is also reportedly trying to convince Grassley to vote against the bill, which is puzzling since Iowa’s banking market is dominated by smaller institutions that should gain market share once the bill goes into effect, as Wall Street’s biggest players are cut down to size a bit.

In fact, Camden Fine, head of the Independent Community Bankers of America, wrote in a private email to his organization that small banks would be “turning the gun on themselves” if they work with Wall Street to defeat financial reform. “Do you really think Wall Street mega firms give a rat’s ass about small banks? Hell no,” he wrote. “They only care about the credibility small banks can wield on Capitol Hill to get them out from under this rock.” Grassley would do well to heed Fine’s advice.