J. K. Rowling's Magical World of Values

Tomorrow (October 1) marks the official publication of my book, Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles.

To celebrate the occasion, I've released a new essay titled "J. K. Rowling's Magical World of Values," which briefly contrasts the magic of Rowling with that of fantasy writers J. R. R. Tolkien and Lloyd Alexander. In Rowling, the heroes move into the magical world and remain there. In Tolkien and Alexander, the magic fades at the end of the stories. What is the thematic significance of this? Read the essay.

Bailouts and the Religious Right

Originally I rejected the following comment because it is snarky and anonymous:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Stop the Bailout: Three Links":

hmmm... now, who is threatening to socialize this country the most right now? we better watch out for those faith-based groups forming during this time of economic turmoil!!

Yet the comment does raise a serious point, so I will offer a serious answer.

Is the threat coming from the religious right or the socialist left? The answer is both. I fear both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, right and left. However, I continue to hold that today's major threat is the faith-based politics of the right.

Which would most negatively impact my life: implementation of the bailout, or implementation of Amendment 48? There is no question that Amendment 48, the darling of the religious right, would be much more disastrous for my life and the lives of most Coloradans.

But there is a deeper issue here. There is no direct connection between the bailout and faith-based politics. But there is an indirect connection. Increasingly the religious right is apathetic or outright hostile toward free markets. George W. Bush, who has made faith-based politics a centerpiece of his presidency, has led the country into deeper deficits, dramatically more state spending, and entitlements that are spinning out of control. And, notably, who is pushing the bailout? George W. Bush. "Who is threatening to socialize this country the most right now?" It is indeed our faith-based president, who holds nothing but contempt for free markets and economic liberty. With his faith-based welfare, Bush has brought the religious right onto the welfare-state gravy train.

And where is John McCain, who pandered to the religious right with his selection of Sarah Palin? Oh, right -- he's pushing the bailout proposal, too. Where's Sarah Palin? Where is this Pitbull with Lipstick? Is she standing with the American people against the bailout? Hell, no. If she becomes vice president or president, is she going to stand up for economic liberty in the White House? Hell, no. She has talked about simultaneously cutting taxes and balancing the budget, but without a serious commitment to spending cuts, her talk is just fantasy.

Bush has expressed a view uncomfortably close to a doctrine of divine command. Palin has praised a witch-hunting minister who prayed to God for her political success. In general, people who believe they're in power by God's authority cannot be trusted to govern according to the principles of individual rights and free-market economics.

To invoke Ayn Rand's phrasing, we are faced by the duel threat of the mystics of muscle -- the socialist left -- and the mystics of spirit -- the religious right. The most frightening (but unsurprising) trend is the merging of the two.

Americans Oppose Bailout

Americans are steamed about the bailout proposal.

The Rocky Mountain News quotes Mark Udall on the constituent reply:

"People are mad," Udall said. "My calls are mixed, between people who say 'No' and people who say 'Hell no.' "

Rational Passion includes this tidbit by Peter Robinson:

A colleague here at the Hoover Institution spoke recently with a senior, and Democratic, member of the California congressional delegation. In the last week, she said, her office had received roughly 15,000 telephone calls, letters, and emails. How many favored the bailout?

Ten.

So, in reply, "Leaders seek new deal," quotes a headline at the top of The Denver Post's web page. The Rocky Mountain News online leads with a story about how Obama and McCain are joining Bush to "save" the bailout package. The level of media cheerleading for the bailout has been extraordinary.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports, "The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression." As economists in the Austrian tradition like to emphasize, a fractional reserve system that can be manipulated by a central agency is prone to bubbles and deflationary retractions.

John Lewis has the following to say about the bailout:

... I am opposed to bailing out these firms. But what I am more opposed to is the entire political culture of regulation--including manipulation of interest rates, Sarbanes-Oxley, changes in accounting rules, the Community Renewal Act, and a scad of others--that has fostered this mess. Two weeks ago no politician in Washington knew this was coming. Suddenly, after several all-nighters, they have enough knowledge to grant a quarter of a trillion dollars to a government bureaucrat, to dole out as he sees fit--and to promise another half-trillion, should his actions make it worse.

Meanwhile, the country focuses on the allegedly evil CEOs, "speculators" (read "investors"), and loan initiators who were earlier damned for NOT making loan money available to high-risk borrowers. I remind you that the Community Renewal Act penalizes firms for not making such risky loans. Now, suddenly, those firms are villified for following the law. ...

The government is not saving Main Street--it is nationalizing it. Is it not true that, with the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government now holds paper on tens of millions of American mortgages? What does granting American citizens "equity positions" and "profits" in companies seized by the government mean, except communism? Don't we condemn Hugo Chavez for nationalizing oil companies? ...

Interesting times, indeed.

Liberty 1, Bailout 0

The fight is hardly over, but today bore witness to a remarkable convergence. The American public maintained the common-sense position that forcibly transferring other people's money to bureaucrats and irresponsible financial institutions is a stupid idea. And the House of Representatives actually voted that way, defeating the Bush-Paulson-Bernanke bailout, at least in the first round.

The pointed drop in the stock market proved a sobering reply. Yet that doesn't change the fundamental issues. Those investors counting on taking money from others by force deserve to lose their shirts, frankly. What needs to happen is for people to learn that, even if misguided federal policies are pushing the market in a dangerous direction, it's foolish to march whistling down that path with the expectation that the feds will bail them out with tax funds (or deficit spending). We need a market correction -- a correction to the years-long, politician-induced lending spree that caused the real-estate bubble and piled up mountains of bad debt.

How did the Colorado delegation vote? "Among Colorado's representatives, the proposed bailout was supported by Tom Tancredo, Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter. The issue was opposed by John Salazar, Mark Udall, Marilyn Musgrave and Doug Lamborn." Thank you, Salazar, Udall, Musgrave, and Lamborn. Shame on you, Tancredo, DeGette, and Perlmutter.

Today I link to three great critiques of the bailout.

First, Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard writes to members of Congress:

I and other Americans will forever condemn any and all politicians who vote for or in any way support a bail out of Wall Street.

Every thinking American knows that the cause of this catastrophe was government intervention in the economy via the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, etc. The notion that more government intervention will solve the problem is absurd, and to act on that notion would be an obscene dereliction of responsibility and a travesty of justice.

The only sound solution to this problem is for the government to acknowledge that its intervention is the fundamental cause of the situation, and, correspondingly, to remove its hands from the economy and let the market correct itself via bankruptcy procedures, liquidations, takeovers, etc. This would lead to a highly volatile market for a brief time, but the market would quickly reallocate assets to those who are most competent, and the economy would begin to recover.

This is not rocket science; it is economics 101, and Americans know it. Don’t test us.

Second, The Crucible & Column brings us "'How Your Government Can Wreck Your Economy and Get Away with It' in 6 Easy Steps." Following are the first two:

1. Set up a Mechanism to Launder Risky Home Mortgage Debt. Create an agency whose sole purpose is to "offer liquidity to the secondary mortgage market." The agency will guarantee home loans for a small "insurance" fee, or it will buy them and repackage them as "mortgage-backed securities" also guaranteed to pay, regardless of default. Set low standards for the types of loans that will quality, and make sure your fees are low so lots of people will sign up for your insurance. Sell these new low risk securities into the financial markets. Viola! You make risky debt look good, and sell it to "suckers" thereby providing liquidity to the mortgage market. Oh, it's true that some of them won't fall for it, but all we need a few, the dumber ones, and the ones who know what's going on, but who are hoping to find a sucker of their own to pass the buck to. Oh, almost forgot. Make sure you set up this agency as a "private" company. Imply that you'll save it if it gets into trouble, but don't promise it explicitly. Give it a nifty, folksy name like Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.They'll love that.

2. Force banks to offer Risky Debt. What? Not enough people are helping you issue risky debt? Well, that's easy. Just pass a law that forces banks to lend to high-risk prospects. Tell them you won't let them do things like merge with other banks unless they can prove they are issuing risky debt the way you want them too. Make sure the law states that they specifically shouldn't look at things like applicants' income, or current assets when making decisions about them. If it doesn't work so well at first we can just revise it, so our money laundering agency gets into the act too. Oh, name again. We certainly don't want something like the "Let's Issue More Risky Debt Act", so we need something that will tug at their heartstrings. Got it! the "Community Reinvestment Act"! They'll love that.

Third, Jeffrey Miron has written a powerful piece for CNN (thanks to Damon Payne):

... This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government. ...

Please read the rest of Miron's excellent article -- and mention it to your friends.

Today was a good day for liberty. The war is hardly over, but in our era good days for liberty are increasingly rare and cause enough to celebrate.

Values of Harry Potter on 9News

Yesterday 9News aired a segment in which I discuss Harry Potter's political lessons. I offer an abbreviated version of a piece I wrote for the Rocky Mountain News. Enjoy!

And then go buy the book, Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles, by Ari Armstrong.

Mesa County Candidates Discuss Economics, Self-Defense

The following article originally was published by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Candidates discuss economics, self-defense

September 29, 2008

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

For many of us, the election can't be over soon enough. The same goes for many of our candidates. Those running for office, with rare exception, believe that they are running for the cause of good government. They become emotionally vested in the race and their proposals. They spend a great deal of time and money (sometimes their own) seeking office. It's exhausting.

When candidates attend forums, often only a few voters show up. Candidates have little opportunity to communicate directly with the voters at large. Usually there are two types of people who attend these forums: those looking for handouts or political favors and those trying to keep from suffering more abuse at the hands of politicians. For those looking at the big picture, these forums offer a painful reminder that politicians have pushed government well beyond its proper bounds.

Your senior author recently attended two forums for candidates. The Pro Second Amendment Committee (PSAC) hosted its forum on September 19; the Mises Economics Study Group held its event on September 24.

PSAC has been around since 1989, motivated by the threat of California's so-called assault gun ban. We're pleased to note that, while the federal government imposed a ban on the sale of certain "assault" weapons in 1994, that ban sunset in 2004, thanks in large part to the work of groups like PSAC.

Sandy Caskey, president of the group, did an excellent job of organizing and conducting the forum. All of the candidates running for office in Mesa County attended, except Marcia Neal, a candidate for state school board.

The candidates shared their views on the importance of the Second Amendment. They all strongly support it, of course. Some of us half expected to see Charlton Heston descend from the heavens to shake their hands.

Unfortunately, the next segment could have aired on Saturday Night Live. None of the candidates seemed to know that Colorado is an open-carry state. Most of them thought the question of open carry should be "studied."

Dan Robinson, a candidate for county commissioner, suggested that technology circumscribes our rights. "Plastic guns cannot be identified in metal detectors and should be controlled," he said. Setting aside the fact that no such gun exists, we wonder if Robinson would extend his argument about technology to the First Amendment. Should we restrict freedom of the press because we now have electricity and the internet?

Your senior author asked the candidates if they would use the power and prestige of their office to press for gun safety in the schools. Some candidates dodged the question by assuming this meant mandatory classroom instruction. Janet Rowland, a candidate for county commissioner, said she would promote voluntary gun safety, and for that she earns our high marks (despite our previous differences with her on other matters).

For the Mises group, Don and Sue McFarland opened their home to over 40 guests. Marcia Neal again offered a very persuasive reason for not attending, this time joined by D. D. Lewis, a candidate for county commissioner. Representative Bernie Buescher failed to respond to several requests to attend the forum.

As an aside, this discussion group is important. With various politicians -- including our Republican president -- promoting $700 billion in new corporate welfare, now is a great time for candidates to turn to the wisdom of master economist Ludwig von Mises. Even though we sometimes disagree with the outfit now bearing his name, at least it makes available many of Mises's works at www.mises.org/misesbooks.asp. To take one example, readers who think of themselves as liberals ought to check out Mises's book Liberalism, which promotes the concept at its truest.

The first pitch to the candidates was a hardball: defend the morality of capitalism or socialism. Such fundamental issues rarely concern today's politicians. The good news is that no candidate choose to defend socialism. The bad news is that none seemed to be able to defend capitalism. We were mildly impressed by County Commissioner Craig Meis, who started down the right path.

We suggest candidates read Ayn Rand's book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Then they'll be ready for the question next time. In fact, voters too might ask themselves whether they can outline the differences between these fundamentally opposed economic systems and defend one over the other.

If more people would read Mises and Rand, they would be on the lookout for the sorts of misguided political controls that caused the current financial crisis. Notably, in her book on capitalism Rand notes that economic crises "blamed on businessmen were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business." That perfectly summarizes recent events.

Today's pragmatic political climate turns most candidates into invertebrates. The major political problem is fantasizing about how best to spend other people's money. So we sincerely appreciate those candidates who made an effort to talk about central ideas, if only for an evening.

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Stop the Bailout: Three Links

Diana Hsieh points to the following media release from Senator Jim DeMint:

"After reviewing the Administration's proposed bailout plan, I believe it is completely unacceptable. This plan does nothing to address the misguided government policies that created this mess and it could make matters much worse by socializing an entire sector of the U.S. economy. This plan fails to oversee or regulate the government failures that led to this crisis. Instead it greatly increases the role for Secretary Paulson whose market predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year, and provides corporate welfare for investment firms on Wall Street that don't want to disclose their assets and sell them to private investors for market rates. Most Americans are paying their bills on time and investing responsibly and should not be forced to pay for the reckless actions of some on Wall Street, especially when no one can guarantee this will solve our current problems."

"This plan will not only cause our nation to fall off the debt cliff, it could send the value of the dollar into a free-fall as investors around the world question our ability to repay our debts. It's also very likely that this plan will extend the cycle of bailouts, encouraging other companies to behave in reckless ways that create the need for even more bailouts, triggering an endless run on our treasury. This plan may make things look better for Wall Street in the next couple months, but the long-term consequences to our economy could be disastrous.

"There are much better ways of dealing with this problem than forcing American taxpayers to pay for every asset some investor doesn't want anymore. We should start by reforming government policies and programs that created this mess, including the Federal Reserve's easy money policy, the congressional charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Community Reinvestment Act. Then Congress should pass a number of permanent and proven pro-growth reforms to encourage capital formation and boost asset values. We need to make permanent reductions in the corporate tax and the capital gains tax rates. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, which encourages companies to take jobs and investment overseas."

"It's a sad fact, but Americans can no longer trust the economic information they are getting from this Administration. The Administration said the bailout of Bear Stearns would stop the bleeding and solve the problem, but they were wrong. They said $150 billion in new government spending using rebate checks would solve the problem, but they were wrong again. They said new authority to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would solve the problem without being used, but they were wrong again. Now they want us to trust them to spend nearly a trillion dollars on more government bailouts. It's completely irresponsible and I cannot support it."

Paul Hsieh cites an article in Tech Crunch by Michael Arrington:

These people (the U.S. government) need to be stopped. Every time we get ourselves into an economic mess, there’s usually some milestone idiocy we can point back to as the government action that made the meltdown inevitable.

Take the current housing crisis that has now spread to the financial markets in general. The cause was too-easy credit that fueled a massive increase in housing prices as people bought houses they couldn’t afford with mortgages they weren’t able to pay off.

In 1999 there was roughly $5 trillion in total U.S. mortgage debt. That number ballooned to $12 trillion by 2007, and we know what happened from there (data is from the U.S. Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight). To put this into perspective, total U.S. GDP is about $11 trillion annually, and U.S. government debt is around $9 trillion. If the housing market really falls apart (meaning more than conservative estimates of a 20% drop), there’s no way the government can simply cover these losses.

Why did it happen? Let’s go back to 1999, when Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, was under pressure by the Clinton administration to find a way to get more loans to “borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.” A pilot program was launched, which soon became general policy. Money flowed to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back.

Paul also noted a release by John Allison, President & CEO of BB&T:

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the primary cause of the mortgage crisis. These government supported enterprises distorted normal market risk mechanisms. While individual private financial institutions have made serious mistakes, the problems in the financial system have been caused by government policies including, affordable housing (now sub-prime), combined with the market disruptions caused by the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low and then raising interest rates too high.

There is no panic on Main Street and in sound financial institutions. The problems are in high-risk financial institutions and on Wall Street. ...

Let's hope enough people in Congress are listening.

Brook: Stop the Bailouts

Yaron Brook issued the following statements about the bailout:

"Over the last year, the central planners at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have pretended that by bailing out homeowners, then bailing out investment banks, then bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they were wisely 'steering' the economy to protect us against some undefined 'systemic risk.'

"But the mounting financial problems reveal that Paulson and Bernanke are as clueless as any other central planners who try to control an entire economy. They are not saving us from anything; they are delaying some of the pain that necessarily follows from a Fed-induced credit bubble, and redistributing that pain to innocent victims. They are punishing responsible individuals and rewarding irresponsible individuals.

"The bailouts must stop. The government must make clear that from now on, those who are in financial trouble must turn to the private market for help if they are to avoid failure; the government must no longer foist their failures on others, and invite another crisis in the future."

Now is a good time to let your congresscritters know you oppose the proposed massive redistribution of wealth.

How Republican Libby Szabo Lost My Vote

I live in a competitive political area, where elections are actually decided during the main elections, not during the primaries. For Colorado's State Senate District 19, Republican Libby Szabo is running against Democrat Evie Hudak. The seat is open, as Democrat Sue Windels is term limited (she's running for Jefferson County Commissioner).

I support neither candidate. I'm going to cast my vote with Hudak as the strongest possible vote against Szabo.

This local race is a microcosm of what's going on nationally. In races across the country, voters face terrible choices, with theocrats on one side, socialists on the other.

Nearly a year ago, I sent a letter to various candidates asking them to endorse the separation of church and state. While I never got around to sending the letter to the state senate candidates, Szabo has made it clear that she strongly endorses faith-based politics. Which is why I strongly oppose her.

I have been arguing for months that a major reason Republicans have killed themselves in Colorado is their unflagging commitment to faith-based politics. For the last several election cycles, my region has been targeted by mailers attacking Republicans who want to ban abortion. This year is no different, as the nearby image demonstrates. It is from a flyer "Paid for by 21st Century Colorado."

Yes, it is true that Szabo wants to "ban all abortions" and "say no to stem cell research." See her answers to the 2008 "Colorado Right to Life: Candidate Questionnaire." Following are Szabo's answers to several of the questions:

Do you advocate that the government uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for the unborn? YES

Do you agree that abortion is always wrong, even when the baby's father is a criminal (a rapist)? YES

Do you support the 2008 Colorado Personhood amendment effort to define "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization? YES

Will you oppose any research or practice that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans (embryonic stem cell research)? YES

Will you refuse to support any legislation that would allow abortion, even if it is a 'pro-life' bill (i.e. legislation that says "Abortion shall be prohibited unless...") I will oppose abortion at every opportunity.

Libby Szabo says yes to faith-based politics. That is why I say no to Libby Szabo, and why I will oppose her at every opportunity.

My vote for Hudak should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any of her policies. "Coloradans for Change" has been circulating an effective flyer claiming that Hudak "spent $11,316 of taxpayer money as a member of the State Board of Education" on things like "expensive, chauffeured limo rides, luxury hotels and expensive meals at 5-star luxury hotels." That does indeed raise my eyebrows (and it might give Szabo a shot at winning).

But nothing turns me off to Hudak as strongly as her own campaign literature. For example, one piece claims, "Evie will invest in cutting-edge renewable energy technology..." Nonsense. I doubt that Hudak has any plans to personally invest in such technology. What she means is that she wants to force me to fund this corporate welfare.

What a choice. The "options" in the state senate race mirror those of the U.S. Senate contest between Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer. While Schaffer opposes abortion, at least he's had enough sense to run away screaming from Amendment 48 (the "personhood" measure that Szabo endorses). I'm voting for Udall for the same reason I'm voting for Hudak: both their opponents push faith-based politics. Udall wrote a particularly strong endorsement of the separation of church and state. It's the same "choice" I faced in the last governor's race, and the reason why I voted for Democrat Bill Ritter.

Maybe someday Colorado Republicans will learn that the Interior West leans toward liberty and away from faith-based politics. There are some hopeful signs. Until then, I guess I'm a Democrat by default, as much as that sickens me.

Ayn Rand on Economic Crises

Congratulations to the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights -- newly established in Washington, D.C. -- for its recognition by Time.

The Center issued an outstanding release by Alex Epstein quoting Rand.

Epstein notes that some writers have blamed the spirit of Ayn Rand for the economic mess. He replies:

There was no free market in mortgages or finance--these markets were riddled with controls and distortions, courtesy of the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, the CRA, the FDC, and Sarbanes-Oxley. And that lack of a real market was precisely the problem; it induced irrational behavior through dictates, handouts, and bailouts.

If the critics of capitalism had bothered to read Ayn Rand, they would know that their attacks are part of a historical trend of blaming capitalism for the sins of government intervention -- a trend that needs to stop if we are to prevent further economic damage.

The release then quotes Rand from The Voice of Reason: "One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."

And in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand wrote:

If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of free enterprise and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on businessmen were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to big industrialists, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessman, but the legislator, not free enterprise, but government controls.

In related news, Diana Hsieh quotes from a release by Senator Jim DeMint, who writes, "This plan does nothing to address the misguided government policies that created this mess and it could make matters much worse by socializing an entire sector of the U.S. economy."

Notes On the Bailout

A better term for it is the "pileon," as the proposal threatens to pile onto taxpayers massive amounts of other people's bad debt and foolish decisions.

The Denver Post quotes from the "three-page outline" of the bailout proposal: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Don't look only at the evils of the bailout itself; look at the precedents it establishes that, in the wrong hands, could lead to an out-and-out fascist state down the line.

The Associated Press at least quotes a couple of opposing voices:

Added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., "I am emphatically against it." ...

Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel's senior Republican, was even more blunt. "I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike," he said. Seated a few feet away from Paulson and Bernanke, he added, "We have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well send $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis."

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., added, "This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it's un-American."

What does the American Public think? On September 17, Rasmussen reported, "Only seven percent (7%) of voters think the federal government should use taxpayer funds to keep a large financial institution solvent. Sixty-five percent (65%) say let the company file for bankruptcy." On September 22, Rasmussen reported, "Most Americans are closely following news reports on the Bush Administration's federal bailout plan for the country's troubled economy, but just 28% support what has been proposed so far. Over one-third of voters (37%) oppose the $700-billion plan, and nearly as many (35%) are undecided..." In other words, Americans have a good gut reaction, but their opposition is being worn down by the constant propaganda in favor of this massive, forced redistribution of wealth.

Finally, Thomas Sowell hedges on the matter of bailouts, but he has some good things to say about the economic problems:

Why then is there such a mess in the financial markets? Much of that mess is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions-- members of Congress.

Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions.

Such institutions-- exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers' money-- are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers.

Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: "The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn't when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late." The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to "privatizing profit and socializing risk," since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don't work out.

Similar concerns were expressed in 2003 by N. Gregory Mankiw, then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Bush. But liberal Democratic Congressman Barney Frank criticized Professor Mankiw, citing "concern for housing" as his reason for supporting Fannie Mae. Barney Frank said that fears about the riskiness of Fannie Mae were "overblown."

As I've noted, Frank is the same fellow who recently advocated the massive bailouts and blamed the problem, not on his own foolish political interventions in the economy, but on "a lack of regulation."

Ron Paul Endorses Protectionist Chuck Baldwin

I am profoundly disappointed that Ron Paul, popular with the folks associated with the Mises Institute -- which has strayed far from the principles of its namesake -- has endorsed a protectionist for president. I suppose I ought not be surprised, as I have learned by hard experience that the Libertarians and their friends cannot be trusted to defend liberty. Nevertheless, I had retained some residual respect for Paul, a Republican Congressman whom I thought at least talked sense on various economic matters.

As I have noted elsewhere, recently Paul endorsed for president Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, instead of Bob Barr, the Libertarian. As kooky as Barr's party is, Baldwin is even worse. For example, Baldwin endorses Paul's effort to define a fertilized egg as a person at the federal level.

Here's what Baldwin has to say about "fair trade," a leftist doctrine:

In order to keep jobs in this country, we need to have a trade policy that works in the best interest of the American people. To this end, I favor a tariff based revenue system, originally implemented by our founding fathers, & which was the policy of th United States during most of our nation's history. A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item's cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs and, at the same time, raise revenue for our national government.

Note that Baldwin is not merely advocating tariffs as a least-bad tax, to be imposed evenly across the board so as to impose the least economic damage. No. Baldwin is advocating tariffs to impose protectionism, to limit free trade. He wants tariffs "based on the difference between the foreign item's cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States."

Baldwin's position is antithetical to liberty and free markets. That Paul, allegedly a sympathizer with Austrian economics, would endorse a protectionist -- a protectionist! -- for president is horrendous. Mises would be appalled.

Notably, protectionist proposals in the late '20s, leading up to the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, were a significant contributer to the Great Depression. The sheer idiocy of Baldwin's proposal cannot be overstated.

Baldwin also wants to "seal our borders and ports" to illegal immigrants -- he makes no mention of expanding legal immigration -- and, in a nod to the conspiracy theorists, he wants to know "what really happened on September 11th." On this page, he doesn't bother to specify what part of the "official" account he thinks is wrong.

Baldwin is a crackpot. Paul has sullied his own name by endorsing him.

Balko Critiques Bailout

Radley Balko has written a devastating critique of the proposed government takeover of a huge chunk of the economy.

Balko first points out that the federal government employs accounting fraud to disguise its massive debts: "If any private corporation employed the same accounting tricks Congress and the White House use to hide the government's massive debt and financial liabilities, its board and executive officers would all be in prison."

Then, after talking about the new plans to bilk the taxpayer, Balko points out that the real culprit of the economic mess is the federal government, not the "free market," as many allege:

Many commenters have blamed all of this on capitalism. This isn't capitalism. It's a peculiar kind of corporatist socialism, where good risks and the resulting profits remain private, but bad risks and the resulting losses are passed on to taxpayers. There's nothing free-market about it.

Balko doesn't get into all the ways that the government caused the current economic problems. Thankfully, Yaron Brook did that a couple of months ago.

But today's statist politicians will hear none of the truth. For example, Barney Frank rationalizes the bailout and blames the problems on "a lack of regulation," by which he means national controls.

The truth is the opposite of what Frank alleges. The government's proper regulatory role is to protect rights of property and contract. When that happens, the free market is regulated by the private actions of millions of participants. Successful businesses thrive; foolish ones ultimately fail. This healthy regulation of the markets has been severely undermined by national political controls. Yet, now that those controls have failed, Frank pretends that the problems were caused by non-existent liberty, in order to rationalize more national political controls.

Come to think of it, that's a pretty good summary of how the Great Depression got rolling.

The 30-Minute Parent

This news story describes a new effort by Denver Public Schools to get parents more involved with their children:

A new effort is focusing on the role parents must play in their children's lives to make them better students. It asks parents to spend 5,280 minutes every school year with their kids doing some sort of intentional activity, such as reading, attending sporting events or going to a museum.

So parents should really stretch themselves, really get into the whole parenting thing by spending a whopping half-hour with their kids every day. Wow. If you spend 35 or 40 minutes per day with your children, I guess you get the gold star.

Then there is this detail:

Parents are being asked to enroll in the Mile High Parents program at their children's school or on the Internet. They will track the minutes they spend with their kids and be eligible for prizes, such as gas cards, money for college and tickets to cultural events.

Sweet! Now you can get prizes for occasionally acting like a parent!

But who's paying for all this stuff? The article doesn't say, and I found no information at Mile High Parents. May we presume it's donated?

The irony here is that Denver Public Schools are tax funded, and the tax funding of schools reduces parental involvement with their children's education. Tax funding largely severs the link between customers and providers, and it trains parents to depend on government bureaucrats to raise their children for them. The solution to that problem is obvious, which is why most people will continue to ignore it.

Unfree Market Failed, Brook Notes

Yaron Brook has pointed out that the recent economic troubles have been caused by misguided government intervention, not by the progressively smaller element of freedom left in the market:

Everyone is blaming "the free market" for today’s financial crisis... But we should be blaming the unfree market. The mortgage and financial markets have been thoroughly controlled by government--and that is why they failed.

It was the government's hand in the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of keeping interest rates artificially low, the irrational lending standards forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act, and the quasi-official policy of bailing out large financial institutions deemed too big to fail, that contributed to creating a situation in which millions of people were buying homes they could not afford, in which the participants experienced the illusion of prosperity, in which billions upon billions of dollars were going into bad investments.

We do not need more regulation or economic "supervision." What we need to do is remove the government's power to coerce, bribe, reward and bail out irrational decisions. The unfree market has failed. It's time for a truly free market.

Brook works for the Ayn Rand Institute. Today's world, with its massive national takeovers of large segments of the market, return to mysticism, publication of popular nonsensical books, etc., is starting to feel altogether too much like the declining world of Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Obama's Economic Poison

The Rocky Mountain News reports:

The Democratic presidential nominee described a six-point plan that would subject all financial institutions that can borrow from the government to more oversight and crack down on trading practices he said border on market manipulation. Such action is needed to repair America's faltering confidence in housing and financial institutions, Obama said.

However, as Yaron Brook points out, the cause of the current economic crisis is a large set of misguided economic controls.

It is the government's job to protect individual rights, not micromanage the economy. The government must prevent force and fraud, and otherwise leave people to interact voluntarily.

Barack Obama's economic socialism is rather like drinking cyanide to get over the cold or flu.

Update: As Myrhaf points out, the McCain camp is hardly better:

How can conservatives listen to Sarah Palin and think she is on the side of freedom? She is every bit as ignorant of economics and every bit the statist nightmare that John McCain is. Watch her speak in Colorado as she promises to continues the trend of expanding regulations and persecuting CEO's. Because management has not run companies "responsibly," this fascist wants to stop "multi-million dollar payouts and golden parachutes to CEO's who break the public trust." She is promising non-objective law and greater intervention in the economy. Her ideas will not solve the problem, which is too much government regulations in the first place.

The coming McCain/Palin administration will be bad for America. Four years from now we will all be a little more enslaved than we are now.

But "fascist?" Come on, Myrhaf -- Palin merely wants state control of the nominally private economy.

Hank Brown Rallies Republican Majority for Choice

This article originally was published by Grand Junction's Free Press.

September 15, 2008

Hank Brown Rallies Republican Majority for Choice

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

"The heart of the Republican Party is here tonight... This party has always been a bastion of protecting individual freedom, and individual rights, and individual opportunity. It took the form of fighting slavery, it took the form of leading the civil rights movement...

"It took a place in fighting to preserve individual freedom as the government became a regulatory monster at the federal level. And even today it takes the form of fighting to save Americans who work for a living a chance and an opportunity to keep a fair share of what they produce...

"And in true form the Republican Party continues to be a champion of individual freedom and individual rights. The issue that we are concerned about tonight is just such an issue. Who in the world ever would believe that the federal government and a federal bureaucrat should have the right to dictate to people their most personal decisions?

"This issue is about individual freedom, individual responsibility -- the very heart of this Republican Party. It's what we've always stood for. It's what's held us together... and what's set Republicans apart. We're the ones who believe individuals have a right to control their own lives. Individuals have a right to decide their own destiny...

"Our gathering tonight is very much in the spirit of this party, it's been the very fiber of what it's believed in and stood for its entire existence. And at the point that we give up supporting and defending individual freedom and choice, we give up the very core of this great party."

Hank Brown, former U.S. Senator and former president of the University of Colorado, shared those remarks last week in Denver with hundreds of supporters of the Republican Majority for Choice (GOPChoice.org), a national group with a strong Colorado presence. The group organized the event to support a woman's right to choose whether to get an abortion and to oppose Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's Constitution.

Brown's remarks impress us for several reasons. As one of the elder statesmen of the Republican Party in Colorado, and as one of the state's most respected leaders, his words carry a great deal of weight. He has shown real leadership by championing a cause unpopular with a segment of his party's base. He has restated his party's basic principles. And he has pointed the way for his party to regain the trust of freedom-minded independent voters and Republicans who respect the separation of church and state.

Brown's comments are broader than a single issue: in a few words, he has restated the principles of liberty that we once thought -- and would like to think again -- belong to the Republican Party.

John McCain hardly ever mentions the words "individual rights," and never have we heard him muster much enthusiasm for the concept. Hank Brown said it, and he meant it. While Brown's party side came through when he praised McCain to your younger author, we wish that come November we could cast our presidential vote for a man like Brown.

We know what the opponents of abortion are thinking at this point. "What about the individual freedoms, rights, and choices of the unborn?" Brown did not get into that philosophical debate. As we've mentioned, the paper "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us explains why a fertilized egg is not a person.

Other speakers explained why Amendment 48 threatens to outlaw abortion -- even in cases of rape and health risks to the woman -- ban popular forms of birth control, ban fertility treatments, and unleash legal havoc in Colorado.

Brown was joined at the event by other notable Republicans, including Gale Norton, former Secretary of the Interior, and State Senator Nancy Spence.

From Grand Junction, former State Representative Gayle Berry attended. She's on the advisory board for the Republican Majority for Choice. She said her goal as part of the organization is "keeping government out of personal choice... A lot of us would choose life, we just don't want government making those decisions for us." She said she's particularly concerned that Amendment 48 would become part of the state's constitution, beyond the reach of the legislature. Also, "it puts 'person' in a definition that could be carried to the extreme."

Berry also showed a party side. Regarding Sarah Palin, who opposes abortion, Berry said, "I love her... I'm not a one-issue voter, and she's not a one-issue candidate." Berry also pointed out that Bob Schaffer also has come out against Amendment 48, though we note that he has not done so based on any fundamental principle. So the GOP remains conflicted.

In 1967, Republican Governor John Love signed a bill liberalizing Colorado's abortion laws. We're glad to see that, in 2008, some Republicans are again planting roots in the soil of liberty.

Harry Potter's Political Lessons

Today the Rocky Mountain News published my article, "Lessons for U.S. politicians from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry." (The original title was "Harry Potter's Lessons for Muggle Politicians," but I like the new one just as well.)

John McCain and Barack Obama would benefit from a semester at Hogwarts (though I suppose they'd both end up causing trouble in Slytherin).

Here I offer just the highlights:
* Do the right thing even if it's difficult.
* Be honest even when it's inconvenient
* Don't cling to power.
* Government is not always the answer.
* Sometimes government gets it wrong.
* Government should protect people's rights.

For details, read the entire article! Then read the book, Values of Harry Potter.

Republican Majority for Choice

On Thursday evening I attended a banquet hosted by the Republican Majority for Choice. I was amazed by the large crowd (hundreds strong) and the caliber of speakers. Hank Brown, who has served both as U.S. Senator and President of the University of Colorado, sported a "No on 48" badge (opposing Amendment 48) as he offered a ringing introduction and ushered in the speakers.




Gale Norton, former Secretary of the Interior, also attended.



I chatted with several sitting and former state legislators. A Republican Majority for Choice. Who knew?

For once I didn't mind bipartisanship as Dottie Lamm and Sarah Weddington -- who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade supreme court case -- also addressed the crowd.

I had a lot of fun (and will have more to say about the event soon). Two sentences kept going through my mind as I talked with people with whom I'm often on opposite sides: "politics indeed makes strange bedfellows" and "I'm pro-choice on everything."

New Hard Rock

Hurrah! From the local rock station The Fox I learned of new music from AC/DC and Metallica. This follows the release of Rush's "Snakes and Arrows" last year; I regard those three bands as the greatest of hard rock. So far I've spent only a few minutes listening, but I'm excited so far. Metallica's "The Day That Never Comes" indicates the band has gotten comfortable again with subtle composition; the group's best songs are very well written. And piano on "Unforgiven III?" Take that, genre zealots. It's a good song. And nothing else matters.

Special Interests Line Up for 59

Recently I criticized Amendment 59, the measure that would forever direct refunds from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights to Colorado politicians. I wrote:

Don't be fooled by claims that the new measure is just about education. As one representative of the "yes" campaign noted in a September 1 e-mail, the measure (which advocates are calling Savings Accounts for Education) would "relieve pressure on higher education, health care, transportation and other core services." In other words, because the new taxes go to education, the legislature can transfer other funds from education to whatever it wants.

Today Peter Blake makes the same point for the Rocky Mountain News:

Although it is nominally designed to provide money for P-12 (formerly K-12) education, and the Colorado Education Association has kicked in $85,000, the ballot issue is drawing support from a wide variety of groups.

The Colorado Bar Association has contributed $25,000, Colorado AARP $15,000, the Colorado Medical Society $5,000. Even Newmont USA, a gold mining firm, gave $15,000.

But the biggest giver has been the Denver Foundation, with $280,000 to date. That's just a fraction of what it's prepared to invest. It deposited $1 million into its own issue committee in July, and $720,000 remains to be transferred.

Why? Said foundation chief David Miller: "As I understand it, SAFE does more than just support education. If it passes, it would free up general fund dollars for health care, which is why the Colorado Health Foundation is a big supporter."

It's kicked in $200,000.

[Carol] Hedges [of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute] confirmed the broader, less advertised, purpose of SAFE. "A dedicated source of funding for schools could reduce the pressure on the general fund, and in turn allow legislators more opportunity for investing in other priorities, such as health care, higher education and transportation."

Hedges' organization has set up its own issue committee to help promote SAFE.

SAFE is a lie. SAFE stands for "Savings Accounts for Education," but the measure would boost funding for whatever programs the legislature wants.

It is also a typical example of "concentrated benefits, dispersed costs." Blake notes that SAFE's "promoters have piles of money and endorsements." Much of this money is coming from people who want a piece of the tax revenues or other political favors. The recipients of the tax dollars -- for whom benefits are concentrated -- have a big incentive to fool Colorado voters into approving it. The funders -- among whom the costs are dispersed -- have little incentive to spend time or money opposing the measure.

Of course a big problem with special-interest warfare is that it promotes ever-higher wealth transfers. Such forcible transfers of wealth benefit some at the expense of others and waste resources in the process. But eventually, to the extent that the policy reaches its logical conclusions, everyone is forced to fund everyone else in a battle to consume the pie.

The alternative is liberty, in which people interact voluntarily, trade to mutual advantage, and focus on producing a bigger pie, rather than fighting over the crumbs.

A Problem with Tax-Funded Libraries

Ben Boychuk takes on the smear that Palin was a book banner in today's Rocky Mountain News. I am taking the facts he reports at face value:

What could possibly inspire such vitriol? A 12-year-old controversy, in which Palin, the newly elected mayor of Wasilla, asked city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons at least three times how she would feel if asked to remove objectionable books from library shelves. Naturally, Emmons said she would refuse. A few months later, Palin asked for Emmons' resignation. The new mayor said she felt Emmons, who had been appointed by Palin's predecessor and political rival, didn't fully support her agenda and should step aside. But Palin made no mention of book banning in her demand for the librarian's resignation. ...

Palin insisted her questions about pulling controversial books from the library shelves were "rhetorical" and had to do with clarifying city policy. ... The worst one could infer is that Palin raised the censorship issue in an ill-advised effort to appease some constituents, met resistance and let the matter drop to pursue more mundane city business. Emmons and Palin's other political enemies are free to speculate and impugn motives all they want. But results matter. And the bottom line is, Palin didn't ban anything.

This story illustrates a problem with spending tax dollars on libraries. Of necessity libraries must be selective in their purchases. They must implement some criteria for buying books and other items. (How a copy of the horrible Catwoman movie ended up on the shelves of my local library remains a mystery.) Thus, a library is bound to conflict with the values of many funders much of the time, in both its selections and omissions. Notably, a book a library doesn't buy can't be removed from the shelves, so it can't be "censored." But whether a book is not purchased or removed, it's still not available there.

On a free market, who makes these decisions? Presumably most libraries would be nonprofit corporations with boards of directors. People would be free to fund, or abstain from funding, the library. By sending their money voluntarily to the library, funders would agree to put certain decisions in the hands of the library's directors. Of course, people could fund particular books or broader selections.

Tax-funded libraries obscure the distinction between a library's legitimate selection process and government censorship. Properly, censorship is defined as the forcible restriction of speech by government. But a tax-funded library automatically employs force to select and omit books. This inherently violates the rights of those forced to fund the library who would not otherwise choose to do so. By forcing some people to fund material that they find objectionable, tax-funded libraries violate their freedom of conscience.

This illustrates a pattern among the left. They cry for political involvement in various institutions, then they whine when -- surprise, surprise -- politicians have control over those institutions. While Palin's interference with the local library is questionable, the problem was created by those who insist on making libraries political institutions.

Lipstick On a Pig

Right now the "story" about Obama's remark, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," which the McCain camp is pretending referenced Palin, is the top story at FoxNews.com. It is the second link down at RockyMountainNews.com. It is the main story at DenverPost.com.

You can put lipstick on the pig of faux journalism, but it's still a pig.

Where's the news story about Palin's views of contraception, including that which may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus? Where's the news story about Palin's former remarks about foreign policy? About welfare? About the relationship between church and state? About anything that, you know, actually matters?

The Collectivist President

I don't know who's going to win in November, but it's clear the victor will be a collectivist. As Yaron Brook puts it:

When McCain and Obama call for "putting country first," they are not simply asking us to love our country. They are urging us, as McCain once put it, to place service to the nation above the pursuit of our own values and happiness. This is collectivism, the doctrine that the individual exists to serve society and that his interests should be sacrificed to those of the group.

This is the exact opposite of America's founding ideal. In the American system, it is the government, not the individual, who is the servant. The government's role is to protect our individual rights so that each of us is free to pursue our own lives and happiness. No group--not even society as a whole--can force us to sacrifice for its ends.

Tragically, for the better part of a century, America has been moving away from the individualist ideals of the Founders and toward collectivism. Just consider the crushing tax burden we all suffer under to fuel an endless list of welfare entitlements in the name of the "public good." ... None of this is compatible with the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Instead of leaders who "put country first" we need leaders who will put freedom first.

Craig Biddle summarizes:

Looking past the particular programs of McCain and Obama, and viewing their goals in terms of the purpose of government presumed by these goals, we can see that both candidates hold that the purpose of government is to manage the economy, to regulate businesses, to redistribute wealth, to bring freedom or democracy to foreigners, and to defer to the will of others on matters of American security. ...

Both McCain and Obama hold that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving or deferring to others; thus, both hold that the individual -- whether a CEO, a plumber, a doctor, or a soldier -- must either sacrifice or be sacrificed for the sake of the "collective" or the "greater good" or the world at large.

Titanic Deck Chairs has a pretty good graphic that aptly summarizes the "contest" between McCain and Obama.

Am. 59 Would Impose New Forever Net Tax Hike

A version of this article appeared in the September 7 Colorado Daily.

Am. 59 would impose new forever net tax hike

by Ari Armstrong

Those wishing to forcibly transfer more money from those who earn it to those who want it constantly review the benefits (real or imagined) of higher tax spending. What they generally ignore are the costs.

Sure, when the government transfers money from Alice to Ben, Ben gets to spend the money on something he wants. But Alice has less to spend on her needs and those of her family, and those with whom Alice does business also suffer.

When people evaluate economic opportunities, they tend to move to where they can keep more of what they earn -- to spend, invest, or give away as they see fit -- and live and work as they deem best, rather than as politicians demand. We Coloradans enjoy a relatively strong economy in large part because it remains a relatively free economy. Higher taxes threaten to alienate vibrant businesses, entrepreneurs, and young workers.

Higher taxes also reduce liberty. People have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Regardless of whether politicians and activists mean well in forcing some people to surrender their money to others, the practice is morally wrong.

This November, Colorado voters will decide whether to respect individual rights or to expand the tyranny of the majority when they vote on Amendment 59, a new, forever net tax hike.

Notably, Amendment 59 is brought to us by much of the same crew that brought us Referendum C in 2005. Legislative Council publishes a couple of interesting documents online about Referendum C. The Council's projection for the net tax hike for the 2005 Blue Book was over $3.7 billion for five years. The new projection is $6.1 billion. Moreover, the measure will permanently increase state spending.

Yet, even though Colorado voters approved a net tax hike just a few years ago expected to raise over $2 billion more than supporters originally suggested, the higher-tax crowd now want billions more. And let us not forget about the tax-funded FasTracks of 2004, the expected costs of which have exploded from $4.7 billion to $7.9 billion.

Don't be fooled by claims that the new measure is just about education. As one representative of the "yes" campaign noted in a September 1 e-mail, the measure (which advocates are calling Savings Accounts for Education) would "relieve pressure on higher education, health care, transportation and other core services." In other words, because the new taxes go to education, the legislature can transfer other funds from education to whatever it wants.

Also beware of claims that the measure "does not increase tax rates." The way that the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights works is that the state must refund taxes that are collected over the limit. So, while Amendment 59 would not impact the rates on taxes collected, it would impose a massive net tax hike by wiping out the refunds.

At this point, Colorado taxpayers might reasonably ask how much is enough. Is there ever a point at which taxes are too high? The simple fact is that there will always be those who cannot afford to buy everything they want with the money they earn or solicit from voluntary contributions, and who turn to politicians to get the rest.

The Colorado tax budget could double, triple, or expand ten fold, and still the taxers would cry that more still is needed.


Ari Armstrong is a guest writer for the Independence Institute and the editor of FreeColorado.com.


Update: As an article in today's Rocky Mountain News points out (though I didn't have space to include the points in the op-ed), Amendment 59 would also phase out Amendment 23, which automatically increases K-12 spending