Around Colorado: April 28, 2009

Hsieh on Health-Bureaucracy Push

Thomas Ferraro and Donna Smith of Reuters reported April 24, "Congressional Democrats are near a deal to ram through legislation overhauling the U.S. healthcare system," imposing so-called "universal" (read: politically controlled) health insurance.

Paul Hsieh of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine writes, "Americans have already been burnt by the Congressional rush to pass the 'stimulus' bill -- which many legislators now acknowledge that they didn't even read before voting for it. Congress should not make the same mistake by rushing to pass 'universal health care' legislation."

Read the excellent letters by Hannah Krening and Diana Hsieh, which Paul reproduces.


Twenty Years for Burglary, Illegal Auto

Congratulations to the AP for getting this point right: "Unregistered fully automatic weapons, sometimes called machine guns, are illegal."

Unfortunately, various important questions remain unanswered. Jason Muchow, "a Loveland mail carrier faces charges of stealing his ex-girlfriend's mail and owning a fully automatic weapon... Authorities say they found a fully automatic AK-47 in Muchow's home after he was accused of breaking into his ex-girlfriend's home and killing her cat... He faces up to 20 years in prison and $500,000 in fines if convicted of all the federal charges."

Surely killing your ex's cat, however horrible and despicable, is not a federal crime. The only reason stealing mail is a federal crime is that the U.S. Government holds a politically-enforced monopoly on first-class mail. Both these things are properly state-level, not federal-level, crimes. If he is proved guilty, he surely deserves significant punishment for stealing, breaking into a house, and killing somebody's cat.

Does Muchow admit that he illegally purchased a full-auto rifle or illegally converted a semiautomatic rifle to full-auto? Or does he claim that his rifle became "fully automatic" only after it was "tested" by federal agents?

My position is that the federal registration requirements for full-autos, imposed through tax laws, should be repealed. That said, if you knowingly buy or convert an unregistered full-auto, you're an idiot. More importantly, Muchow should be punished for victimizing another person, if proved guilty, and that is the point that I think all parties can agree on.


Buck Hate Crimes

I was pleased when the murderer of transgendered Angie Zapata was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. The murderer deserved (at least) that.

But is the crime somehow more heinous because it was obviously motivated by bigotry? I mean, he bashed in an innocent person's skull with a fire extinguisher. Isn't that bare fact enough to send somebody to prison for life?

More to the point, if a criminal bashes in somebody's skull for some other motive, is the crime somehow less abhorrent? Is the victim less deserving of tough sentencing?

"Ikonoclst" over at the People's Press Collective blasts Ken Buck, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, for praising hate-crime legislation.

However, Republican arguments against hate-crime legislation would go over better if some Republicans were not so shrilly anti-homosexual.


Arveschoug-Bird Safe for Now?

Last month I reviewed some of the details of the Arveschoug-Bird law, which limits general fund expenditures.

According to the Denver Post's Tim Hoover, the Republicans played a clever political hand to derail the effort to remove the law.

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker told Hoover, "It is extremely disingenuous for the Democrats to remove this spending cap under the guise of creating transportation funding. We proved today just how easy it is to siphon those so-called transportation dollars right out of the bill and put them wherever you want."

Grand Junction Tea Party

The following column originally appeared in the April 13, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

See you at the Grand Junction Tea Party

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Finally there's a reason to feel good about April 15 again. Yes, it's tax day -- and the federal government is spending more of our money than ever before. But this year the date also marks the Tax Day Tea Party, to be held in cities around Colorado and the nation. Grand Junction's tea party is scheduled for noon at 12th and North.

Part of the inspiration for the tea parties is a CNBC segment with Rick Santelli, available on YouTube, in which he called for a Chicago Tea Party. He said, "The government is promoting bad behavior... How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage, that has an extra bathroom, and can't pay their bills? ...

"You can't buy your way into prosperity. And if the multiplier that all these Washington economists are selling us is over one, then we never have to worry about the economy again. The government should spend a trillion dollars an hour because we'll get 1.5 trillion back...

"If you read our founding fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we're doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves."

A transcript can't capture the passion of the moment, but it gives you some idea.

Though we're sure to disagree with some of the speakers and literature at some of the tea parties, we're thrilled that some Americans, at least, are taking a stand against bloated federal government and for liberty.

One of the speakers in Grand Junction will be Ryan Frazier, an Aurora city council member whose name keeps popping up in discussions of possible U.S. Senate candidates. We contacted Frazier to learn what he thinks about the tea parties.

Frazier said, "The Tea Parties throughout Colorado and this country represent a ground swell of citizens, in their local communities, who are motivated to restore fiscal responsibility in government. This is significant because it's grassroots at its core and it's uniting people of different backgrounds to a common purpose -- Liberty."

We asked him for a preview of what he'll discuss. He answered, "Liberty. Prosperity. Opportunity. That a free, educated, strong people are the engine of a prosperous society. I will stress that the primary role of government is to protect our freedoms, not to manage our lives. Lastly, that we as individuals must stand together to advance liberty and fiscal responsibility in this country and now is the time."

Frazier said he's worried that the federal government is "running deficits year after year, resulting in a national debt that now exceeds $11 trillion and a proposed budget of over $4 trillion in 2009. This level of spending and irresponsible fiscal policy is unsustainable and ultimately will drag our potential for economic growth down over the long-term."

As we've pointed out previously, federal policy also threatens to unleash a wave of inflation. Frazier also sees this danger: "Our currency could be debased and our living standards reduced -- imagine our dollar worth less and buying even less -- this impacts everyone."

Frazier argued that "for economic growth, jobs and business that we need to flourish, we must achieve a limited, responsible government that does not hinder the ability of individual and economic freedom to drive forward our economy."

What? "Individual and economic freedom?" Politicians can't say things like that anymore -- doesn't Frazier know that?

We're in the era not just of Big Government, but of Gargantuan Government, in which the president and his administration can pick CEOs, reorganize corporations, override private contracts, funnel your money to whatever corporate welfare they want, and reward the irresponsible with the earnings of the responsible.

We have come a long way from the government founded on the individual's rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On November 29, 1773, Sam Adams led a meeting at Faneuil Hall, the "Cradle of Liberty," to protest tea taxes that asserted British control over the colonies. On December 16, the Sons of Liberty unloaded a boatload of tea into the Boston harbor.

There is a difference between then and now: then the British government asserted unjust power over the colonies. Today, America is imposing tyranny on itself, slowly eroding the pillars of our nation with the acid of special-interest politics and the forced redistribution of wealth from the producers to the politically connected.

Without a foundation of liberty and individual rights, the new tea parties will lead nowhere. What we need is a restoration of the ideal of the individual's right to lead his own life, make his own choices consistent with the rights of others, and direct the fruits of his labor as he sees fit, rather than as politicians demand.

We can be the Grandsons and Granddaughters of Liberty.

Around Colorado: April 7, 2009

Sam Adams Alliance

As noted, I won the "Modern-Day Sam Adams Award." Patricia Calhoun has written about it over at Westword, and bloggers Ben Degrow and El Presidente have also picked up the story. I appreciate the warm wishes.


Windmills and Mechanical Energy Storage

Earlier this year I wondered whether it might be possible for a windmill to "slowly lift a giant boulder in the air" in order to store the energy, then drop the rock slowly to run a generator. However, one my friends who is a professional scientist pointed out to me that a small-scale system just isn't feasible. You'd have to lift a huge rock quite a ways into the air for even a small amount of electricity. To get enough weight to generate significant electricity, you'd have to build a large and expensive infrastructure. The plan is at least well beyond the backyard model.

Another scientist, Brian Schwartz, pointed to a write-up of "pumped-storage hydroelectricity." The idea is that you pump water into a reservoir, then release the water downhill to run a generator. The problem with adapting such a system to wind power is that it's only feasible where the natural landscape provides the relevant features.

I think the lesson here is that there's no "get electricity quick" scheme that works. For most areas, the only feasible and cost-effective options, so far, remain fossil fuels and nuclear power. But the greenies don't like either of those.


Million Dollar Man

Ward Churchill wants his job back -- or a million dollars. Because, you know, it's not about the money for him. It's about the blackmail.


Tax Man on Steroids

Vincent Carroll points out that the State Supreme Court, in ruling that the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights doesn't really mean what it says, "sets up Coloradans to be nibbled to death by one tax hike after another."

Get ready to pay. Because state legislators are infinitely better at spending your money than you are.

Everyone Is Welcome at Hamburger Mary's

The following article originally was published March 30, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Everyone is welcome at Hamburger Mary's

"Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural, created order," State Senator Scott Renfroe said February 23 on the Senate floor. He called homosexuality an "abomination," a "detestable act" worthy of the death penalty in Old Testament scripture. He said that adultery and murder are also sins, and "all sin is equal."

Fast forward to March 24. Josh Penry, Senate Minority Leader whose name often comes up in discussions of possible Republican challengers to Governor Bill Ritter, spoke to the Denver Metro Young Republicans at Hamburger Mary's in Denver.

The restaurant's web page explains, "Hamburger Mary's franchises are 'open-air bar and grilles for open-minded people,' where guests enjoy a flamboyant dining experience. Everyone is welcome at Hamburger Mary's, but our concept is unique in that we are the ONLY national franchise actively marketing to the gay community."

Open-minded Republicans. Who knew?

Penry told Tim Hoover of the Denver Post, "I've got a traditional view on marriage, and a similarly traditional view that you shouldn't spend your life judging others. And so I don't."

Thomas James, president of DMYR, told Hoover that the group picked the restaurant for capitalistic reasons, not political ones: the burger joint offered a "suitable layout" at a "good location."

James added, "DMYR welcomes any individuals who share its five core principles: individual rights with personal responsibility, small and limited government, free-market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the rule of law."

We think it's a very good thing for Republicans to befriend homosexuals and for homosexuals to befriend capitalists. It could be a match made in heaven.

Ward Churchill: Another big story from Denver is that Ward Churchill appeared in court last week to get his job back at the University of Colorado.

The people who really deserved to be fired were those responsible for hiring Churchill in the first place. The entire premise of offering Churchill a job was that he was supposedly a Native American who would write leftist attacks on the United States. Churchill never had the appropriate credentials for the position. And there's not a shred of evidence suggesting he has any American Indian ancestry.

Search online for Churchill's "Winter Attack," and you will find that Churchill sold reproductions of a work that he had copied, with a few minor alterations, from the deceased artist Thomas Mails.

Churchill was a fraud before his job at CU, he was a fraud in getting that job, and he was a fraud as a professor, plagiarizing the work of others and fabricating "facts." The true scandal is not that Churchill fought to get his job back but that he ever landed the job in the first place.

Then of course Churchill compared the American victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to Nazis. He wrote of the destruction of the World Trade Center, "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

In an added fraud, Churchill claims that his "right" to keep his job is protected by the First Amendment. It is not. The First Amendment forbids censorship, government restraint of free speech. The First Amendment does not require employers to provide the resources for employees to speak. For instance, you do not have the right to give a speech in your office promoting racism.

Churchill may have been protected by his employment contract -- again a problem that CU created -- but the First Amendment has nothing to do with job protection. True, because CU accepts tax dollars, more government protections apply. But just imagine how seriously the left would take Churchill's First Amendment claims if, for instance, a professor argued that homosexuals deserved to be beaten. Churchill's leftist supporters would be the first to demand a firing (and we would agree, again subject to contractual constraints).

Ah, but Churchill is cool, he has a persona, bangs a drum, wears a Che hat with sunglasses and poses with guns, and says things the left enjoys. And that is enough for young sycophants and feeble minded leftists to ignore Churchill's fraud and their own hypocrisy.

Bill 1984: Local Representative Steve King is a House sponsor of an atrocious bill that would collect DNA samples prior to criminal conviction, based only on arrest. The bill is officially numbered 241, but we call it Bill 1984 because of its Orwellian implications.

Nothing is more basic to our system of justice than the presumption of innocence, which Bill 1984 threatens. One thing the bill would do is give the police an incentive to arrest people on some pretext just to get a look at their DNA. We have enough Kings in the horror business, Steve.

Around Colorado: March 10, 2009

Massachusetts Again

Apparently the advocates of socialized medicine will never give up, no matter how many times a variant of their schemes fails, no matter how many times their premises are defeated.

Michael Salem, president and CEO of National Jewish Health, argues -- no "argues" is not quite the right word, since he doesn't actually offer any argument -- that "Colorado should look at various models (such as Massachusetts)" in designing political controls of medicine.

To learn why that would be a disaster, and why we need liberty in medicine rather than more political controls, read the article of Paul Hsieh, MD, "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America."

Brian Schwartz also has out a good op-ed on health policy, published by Colorado Daily.


Keep Electoral College

Here's another one for the "Why Are We Still Talking About This" file: "If lawmakers ultimately approve House Bill 1299, Colorado will join a still-small coalition of states that vow to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, regardless of whether that candidate won in their state."

I've explained over and again why doing away with the electoral college would be very stupid and bad for Colorado.

Unfortunately, the Denver Post has sacrificed clarity for cuteness with its headline: "Bill 'popular' enough to get 1st panel's OK." Very funny word play; I'm rolling. Nevertheless, the measure lost in a popular vote in 2004 by nearly two to one.

I am tempted to mention how idiotic the Democrats are for pushing this sort of nonsense, but then I remember the Republicans...


Keep Asset Forfeiture Reforms

I've collected some of the key information about a bill that would gut the asset forfeiture reforms of 2002. (See also the update.)

Now Ed Quillen of the Denver Post has weighed in:

[T]he government could also attempt to take the house in civil court... even if [the criminal suspect] was acquitted. That's "civil asset forfeiture." ...

Obviously, this procedure is ripe for abuse, and in 2002 Colorado adopted a law to prevent such abuses. It requires a criminal conviction before forfeiture, and protects innocent property owners whose tenants commit crimes. It requires forfeiture proceeds to go through the regular budget process, rather than to the policing agency. It has reporting requirements.

In other words, our current law allows asset forfeiture as a legitimate tool of law enforcement, but makes the process fair and open.

But apparently, it doesn't bring in enough money, and thus House Bill 1238, sponsored by Joe Rice, a Littleton Democrat, would repeal the requirement for a conviction as well as the reporting requirement. In other words, it allows cops to seize property on mere suspicion and auction it off, with a big chunk of the profits going to the "seizing agency."

Hey, why pay taxes to support police departments when they can finance themselves this way? And why bother with the burdens of convicting someone in criminal court when you can just grab his assets through a civil procedure, where there's no right to counsel and no protection against self-incrimination?

Applied vigorously, HB 1238 could enhance revenues without raising taxes, and I can't think of any other reason that this legislature would even consider such an assault on a quaint, old-fashioned concept like "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Jerry Kopel has also blasted the measure in an article for the Pueblo Chieftain: "We should not go back to a system that made police and district attorneys look like pirates out for loot instead of providing enforcement of criminal justice standards."


Energy Crisis Looms

The Obama administration, along with Democratic leaders in Colorado, seem determined to forcibly restrict the production of real energy (coal, oil, natural gas) while lathering fantasy energy (windmills, solar panels) with corporate welfare. If these trends continue, the result will be phenomenally more expensive energy for our homes and cars and a "fantasy energy economy" essentially controlled by politicians. (I'm all for alternative sources of energy, provided that people adopt them voluntarily in a free market.)

Nancy Lofholm begins her recent article for The Denver Post: "The number of rigs drilling for natural gas and oil in Colorado has plunged 46 percent in the past year -- one of the steepest declines in the country." Obviously broader economic trends are a factor.

Meanwhile, Vincent Carroll points out, "At the very moment Obama is poised to direct waves of subsidies into forms of renewable energy that account for a minuscule slice of the nation's electricity, he would strip oil and natural gas producers of incentives to drill."

But, again, a huge part of the problem is that the federal and state governments own most of the land from which energy is drawn. And so decisions are made not by private land holders, environmental groups that buy up conservation lands, and civil courts defending real property rights: decisions are made by politicians and bureaucrats.

The Denver Business Journal reports:

Colorado lawmakers Friday heard testimony on proposed oil and gas rules that energy leaders say are turning the screws on one of Colorado's largest industries.

The regulations are intended to reduce the environmental impact from drilling by requiring oil and gas operators to keep compliance checklists and confer with the Colorado Division of Wildlife on minimizing the effect of drilling on wildlife. The regulations also set stricter standards on crude oil storage.

On a free market, land owners would have the incentive to balance land uses. Typically oil firms would look for side revenues from recreational use, and environmental groups would look for side revenues from energy production. But today we have a system in which wildlife rules are twisted to environmental ends in order to force down energy production.

Ah, but might not the environmental rules make Colorado more desirable for tourists? Sure, we'll make up the revenues by catering to hunters and the like. Right. Leaving aside the fact that there's limited inherent conflict between energy production and recreation use. Of course, if people can't afford to travel here due to high energy prices...


End Beer Protectionism

As I've argued, current law that restricts grocery store sales of beer are protectionist, and they are wrong. But now the "Baptists" have trotted out another ludicrous argument for protectionism:

One contention they have is that the bill would allow grocery store workers and convenience store workers who are under the age of 21 to be able to sell full-strength beer.

Clerks at liquor stores must be at least 21, they point out.

"The bill weakens rules aimed at keeping alcohol out of the hands of underage drinkers," said Sen. Lois Tochtrop, an Adams County Democrat.

"This will double the number of outlets selling full strength beer," said Kory Nelson, a Denver city attorney who prosecutes stores that sell to underage customers. Emphasizing that he was speaking only for himself, he said in the press release: "There will be beer sliding out the back door and slipping through the cash registers. It will mean kids selling beer to kids."

I cannot offer the most apt description of these protectionist claims, as I have a policy against swearing. So let me say only that the cited arguments are stupid.

Grocery stores already sell 3.2 beer; why would sales of other types of beer pose any greater problems? Other states already allow grocery store sales, and apparently the sky has not fallen there.

Nelson's argument seems to be that grocery store employees will steal beer from the stores in order to sell it black market. And yet, for some reason, grocery stores are willing to take that risk, perhaps because they realize that Nelson's claims are moronic. What a stooge.

Grocery store employees are just as likely to steal 3.2 beer, cigarettes, and cold medicine (which can be used to produce methamphetamine). Yet we don't outlaw grocery store sales of those items.

I agree that the government plays a legitimate role in keeping stores from selling certain dangerous items to minors, on the grounds that minors are still under the care of a guardian and have not acquired the maturity to engage in certain transactions. But such police actions can never justify violating the rights of stores to sell lawful products to adults.

Protectionism "for the children" just doesn't fly.

Arveschoug-Bird

Mike Littwin is among the Rocky writers to make the jump to the Denver Post. With all the shaking up, I wish the Post had decided to put its editorial writers on, you know, its editorial page, but for some reason that escapes me it continues to put a select corps of editorial writers on the news side.

Today Littwin argues that the "repeal of the Arveschoug-Bird provision... [is] a start toward fiscal sanity." Littwin's reason for this? Wait a minute... this is Mike Littwin, so he doesn't need any reasons. He's just that funny.

It is admittedly a complicated issue. So who better to explain it than the leftist Bighorn Center?

Arveschoug-Bird limits the growth of General Fund expenditures to 6% more than the previous year or 5% of personal income, whichever amount is lower. In practice the 6% limit is always less. ...

Arveschoug-Bird limits only General Fund spending while TABOR limits the total amount of revenues that state and local governments can keep. Revenues includes most state fees.

With the passage of TABOR, Arveschoug-Bird effectively became "constitutionalized" since TABOR does not allow any spending limit to be weakened without a vote of the people.

There are some notable exceptions that are not counted under the Arveschoug-Bird limit, such as General Fund spending mandated by the federal government and transfers to capital construction.

Wait another minute... where is this "vote of the people?" The Democrats' answer is basically, "We don't need no stinkin' vote of the people." Colorado Independent explains, "Supporters of the bill, relying on a recent interpretation of the law written by former Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofky, argued that Arveschoug-Bird is not a cap but an allocation strategy..."

Here is the Republican response:

The bill would end a long-standing policy that caps the growth of the state's operating budget at 6 percent a year. The legislation would amount to a dramatic shift--shorting highways untold billions of dollars in the years to come -- because of a formula that directs all revenue in excess of the cap to transportation and other critical capital projects. Without the cap, the highway-funding formula is moot.

"...the pressure to grow operating programs is immense," Denver Chamber spokesperson Tamra Ward says in prepared a statement distributed to the business community. "The 6 percent limit prevents operating spending from growing beyond a sustainable level."

"This bill jeopardizes any hope we might have of fully funding vital road and bridge needs for the foreseable future," said Assistant GOP Leader Greg Brophy, of Wray. "So it's really no surprise that so many business groups have stepped forward to call the Democrats out on this reckless move."

In the end, I simply don't trust the Democrats to treat the matter as an "allocation strategy." Instead, they'll treat it as a way to shortchange transportation so that they can fund other programs, then plead with the taxpayers for new transportation-specific taxes. That's just the way they roll.

Pork Roast Rally in Photos

Here are my photographs of today's "Pork Roast" Rally in opposition to the so-called "stimulus" package that President Obama signed today. Both events took place in Denver. My photos may be reproduced if credited to FreeColorado.com. See Slapstick and Michelle Malkin for additional photos and notes. In a future post, I'll include audio of the event and extensive commentary.


The $30,000 estimate of the total per-household cost for the "stimulus" comes from Representative Paul Ryan.


















Jim Pfaff of Americans for Prosperity prepares to address the crowd congregated at the State Capitol.


Left-wingers Jason Salzman and Michael Huttner come out for the show.




Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute fires up the crowd.




Michelle Malkin delivers a short but feisty talk.


"One Trick" Tom Tancredo does what he does best: lament immigration.


State Senator Shawn Mitchell, on the other hand, addresses the matter of the day with his cold logic and passionate ideals.


State Senator Josh Penry, the man on the radar of Salzman and Huttner, may run for higher office next year.


Brad Jones of Face the State (with the still camera) and Michael Sandoval of Slapstick Politics (with the video camera) cover the event.




This was the lucky pig at the rally, who seemed to be enjoying himself. (Or herself.)


This was the unlucky pig, served with a smile by Michelle Malkin to protest the pork-laden "stimulus" package.

Around Colorado 2/4/09

Seeing Red Over Green Jobs

One more time: transferring money from the free economy to politically-favored jobs does not "create jobs," it destroys some jobs and replaces them with others. Brad Collins, executive director of the American Solar Energy Society in Boulder, joins the list of those who apparently have never heard of Henry Hazlitt. His famous book is called Economics In One Lesson. Read it.

Collins writes,

During these precarious economic times marked by declining business revenues, widespread job losses and struggling families, we need to identify and support industries that are well-positioned for growth. ... Colorado's share of that impact is $10.2 billion annually, with 91,285 jobs, and the state is now widely recognized as a national leader in the rapidly growing green economy.

Sure it's positioned for growth: that's what happens when politicians subsidize an industry while strangling the competitors. But if "green" energy were truly good for the economy, it would succeed on a free market. Only then would the resulting jobs and revenues signal net economic gains.


Wage Controls

Vincent Carroll describes some of the problems with Colorado's perpetually increasing wage floor. Because the measure was poorly written, it will hammer restaurants harder every year. Carroll is far to kind to the measure, though. Waiting tables is for many an entry-level job requiring no special skills. How many kids pay for college that way? Everyone who voted for the measure voted to throw some of those workers out of a job. There's nothing understandable or excusable about that. Wage controls hurt entry level workers. Wage controls are immoral, and they should be repealed.


Legislature: Cells, Roads

The legislature is considering "banning drivers from talking on cellphones without a hands-free device." Never mind the fact that driving while using a hands-free device is just as dangerous. This is about tears, damn it, not logic. Obviously we also need a bill to ban talking to other passengers while driving, eating and drinking while driving, daydreaming while driving...

I'm a little confused as to why Republicans are pushing higher car fees. What happened to the gasoline tax?


Spending Restraints, Shmending Restraints

The Denver Post is positively giddy about the prospects of wiping out Colorado's restraints on political spending. If the Post gets its way, Colorado citizens will pay increasingly more in taxes into the future.


Transparency

Face the State has out an article on "transparency," the move to put all records of political spending online. The Gazette has editorialized in favor of transparency. I fully endorse the move. The costs are trivial relative to the benefit of permitting citizens who pay for the whole mess to look at where their money is going.

Voters should regard this issue as the standard by which they decide whether Democrats stay in power. What's more Democratic than giving information to the people? If Democrats fail to pass full transparency, for every branch and level of government, we'll know that they care more about special interests than about the people. It's our money, and we deserve to see how it's spent. The only reason to keep that information from the public is if there's something to hide.

Around Colorado 2/3/09

Rosen, Tancredo Take Financial Losses

Both the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post report that Mike Rosen, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, and other clients of the Boulder-based Agile Group took big financial losses. Apparently the company had some of its investments tied up with Bernard Madoff and Tom Petters, both of whom have been accused of fraud. As Westword notes, Al Lewis broke the story.

Rosen mentioned on his radio show this morning that some people called him to blast conservatives and capitalism. Well, the current financial crisis is partly the fault of conservatives, to the extent that they sanctioned or endorsed the federal economic interventions that encouraged risky loans and real-estate spending and promoted an easy-money policy by the Federal Reserve. But certainly this is not a failure of capitalism.

To the extent that the losses are the result of fraud, that's properly a crime, and the government's legitimate role is to root out fraud. To the extent that the losses are the result of legal risk, well, that's the market, though the market has become a lot more capricious due to political controls. People who think they can outperform the market routinely lose money, though of course sometimes they make a lot of money. My wife and I have already decided that we're going to first focus on paying off our mortgage, then invest a portion of our earnings in a straight S&P 500 fund. I'm smart enough to realize that I'm not smart enough to beat the market.

If somebody is asking to take your money, your first reaction should be deep skepticism, followed by a request for complete information. Returns that sound too good to be true probably are, at least in the long run.


Democratic Tax Problems

The Rocky reminds us that Democrats such as Tom Daschle have trouble figuring out and paying their taxes. The worst "punishment" they face is the possibility of not getting appointed to a high-paying cabinet job where they get help spend the tax dollars of everyone else. Meanwhile, the rest of us face fines and potential criminal penalties. The income tax should not be simplified, it should not be replaced, it should be scrapped.


Long Live Henry Hazlitt

Alice Madden, our new "climate change coordinator," said, "One of the most exciting aspects to this challenge is that almost every solution has the added benefit of creating jobs. In these tough economic times, I can't think of a better win-win for us all." Would it be too much to ask that a single Democrat bother to learn basic economics? I guess Madden's new middle name is "In Wonderland." Look, robbing Peter to pay Paul does not create jobs; it just replaces a market job with a politically-favored one.


Legislature

A bill to force use of carbon-monoxide detectors advanced, even though it's a bad idea.

At the federal level, Democrats are trying to increase welfare spending on mental health.

"The state Senate president on Monday cautiously threw his support behind a Republican plan to phase out the widely loathed business personal-property..."

Some legislators want to remove state spending cap: "And they have found new hope in a legal opinion that says their target, known as the Arves-choug-Bird limit, is not protected by the state constitution... [T]he provision limits growth in spending from the state's general fund... to no more than 6 percent a year." Or we could try, you know, letting people use their own money as they see fit.

Ritter to Promote Transparent Budget

Face the State reports:

With the 2009 legislative session jumping into full swing, Gov. Bill Ritter is scheduled to deliver his State of the State speech today where it is expected he will introduce his plan for a more transparent government by proposing to make the state budget available online. The plan is just the latest is a string of instances where the Democrat has utilized Republican ideas to suggest changes to state law.

Government transparency has been a priority for Republican lawmakers in recent sessions. Face the State has obtained a copy of draft legislation (PDF) that Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Littleton, and Rep. Don Marostica, R-Loveland, were planning to introduce this session to make the itemized state budget available online, but which Ritter may enforce by executive order instead.

This is a great, great idea that deserves broad support.

Politically, this is a great move for Ritter. As Face the State observes, this is a Republican idea. But the Democrats have won here by accommodating some of the better Republican ideas and repudiating the worst ones (regarding social policy). In some cases, it took the Democrats to pass reforms that Republicans long opposed, such as permitting Sunday liquor sales, a free-market issue.

Not only the state government but every governmental entity in the state should make its complete budget and spending documents available online. Taxpayers deserve access to this information. If Democrats deliver, they just might prove to Colorado voters that they deserve to remain in charge.

Economic Liberty Means Prosperity

Two stories from the newspapers today suggest something interesting about the attractiveness of economic liberty.

The Denver Post reports:

Rollie Heath, a Boulder Democrat elected to the [State] Senate, said that as lawmakers grapple in the coming session with cutting as much as $600 million from the budget because of declining revenues, they should also look at TABOR [the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights], a revenue-capping provision of the state's constitution.

The state is in a timeout from TABOR's tax-revenue limits, but that timeout expires in 2010, when Colorado will have to begin refunding to taxpayers any revenue it collects over TABOR's prescribed limit. ...

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, who also is a member of the Committee on Job Creation and Economic Growth, shuddered at the idea.

"When did job creation become about maximizing the government's budget?" Mitchell said, "TABOR isn't constricting state revenues at all right now. When TABOR resumes, it won't cut anything.... If someone thinks that's a chokehold, they have emphysema."

It's good to see that some Republicans continue to take seriously the virtues of economic liberty.

The second story comes from the Rocky Mountain News:

Colorado may not be booming these days, but it remains among the fastest-growing states in the nation, placing third, along with Texas and North Carolina, with population growth of 2 percent.

Utah outstripped Colorado for the No. 1 spot nationwide, growing at 2.5 percent, while Arizona came in second, with growth of 2.3 percent between July 2007 and July 2008.

Still, Colorado gained 96,686 people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, with total population reaching 4.9 million, up from 4.8 million in July 2007.

Unlike Utah, where much of the growth comes from natural births, Colorado's surge in head count is due largely to an influx of 52,398 migrants from other states and countries, according to Robert Bernstein, a spokesman for the U.S. Census in Washington, D.C.

Is it merely coincidence that people like to move toward economic liberty? No. True, Colorado is attractive for a variety of other reasons, particularly the mountains. Yet, accounting for other variables, people tend to move toward economic liberty and away from economic political controls.

The U.S. Economic Freedom Index: 2008 Report explains the connection. The summary states:

The net migration rate for the 20 freest states was 27.36 people per 1,000, while it was a low 1.17 people per 1,000 for the 20 most economically oppressed states. “People are moving to the freest states and fleeing the least free states as our market-based migration metric of economic freedom predicts,” said Lawrence J. McQuillan, Ph.D., director of Business and Economic Studies at PRI and director of the project. “By measuring economic freedom and studying its effects, people will gain a fuller appreciation of the important imprint it makes on the economic and political fabric of America and will encourage new state legislation that advances economic liberty.” ...

South Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and Oklahoma rank among the top 10 most economically free states in the nation.

Unfortunately, none of the states is very free, and all suffer from a bloated federal government. So Colorado is freer only on a relative scale. But liberty ought not be graded on a curve. Individual rights deserve respect all of the time, not merely sometimes. What Colorado needs is more economic liberty and less political control of the economy.

Salazar Move Could Boost GOP

Both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News are reporting that Colorado Senator Ken Salazar will become Obama's Secretary of the Interior. That's good for Salazar, and perhaps good for Colorado, but it may or may not be good for the Democratic Party of the state.

As far as I can tell, the two leading candidates to replace Salazar are his brother, Congressman John Salazar from the Western Slope, and Andrew Romanoff, Speaker of the Colorado House (who loves tax hikes).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Governor Bill Ritter named Salzar for the position, for several reasons. First, that would be the safest bet for preserving the seat for the Dems; Salazar has the name and the Western appeal. Next, that would allow Ritter to name Bernie Buescher to Congress. (Buescher, a prized Dem, was just beaten in his state house race in an upset.) I'm not aware of anybody better to fill John Salazar's shoes from the D side.

[Update: I'm wrong on that point, as somebody noted in the comments. While Ritter can appoint the Senator, he cannot appoint a House member. Ed Quillen pointed me to the Federal Constitution, which in Article I, Section 2, states, "When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the Executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

Colorado statute 1-12-201 states, "When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator from this state, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy until it is filled by election." Statute 1-12-202 states "the governor shall set a day to hold a congressional vacancy election..."

I think this fact makes it unlikely that Ritter would name John Salazar to the Senate, for, without Obama's coattails and with nervousness about one-party rule, I think the seat very likely would go Republican. But that creates the problem for Ritter of putting somebody up for Senate that the Republicans can take down in a couple years.]

That move would take Buescher out of the running for Secretary of State, which Ritter will fill because Mike Coffman went and got himself elected to Congress.

That leaves Ritter to choose between Andrew Romanoff and Ken Gordon, both tax-and-spend, anti-gun, Denver Dems. My vote (not that Ritter cares) is for Gordon. Even though most of his politics stink, he actually has some good ideas about running elections (though I fear he may follow the common Dem line and reduce identification requirements for voting).

The problem for Ritter is that he probably has to expose the Senate or House seat. I think John Salazar would be a strong candidate for Senate in two years. But Buescher is a proven loser in his area. I think Westerners already tire of the Democratic takeover. But any senatorial candidate but Salazar probably would invite a very strong Republican challenge.

There are several Republicans who would love a contest against the likes of Romanoff or leftie Congressional member Diana DeGette. I'm thinking of Bob Schaffer, who just lost the senatorial contest to Mark Udall; former Congressman Scott McInnis, who claims he could have beat Udall; and former governor Bill Owens. Hell, even Elway might decide he's ready for some politics. There are probably a half-dozen other Republicans who could pry the seat from a tax-and-spend Denver Dem.

Maybe Ritter will come up with a name that doesn't seem obvious to me. But so far I don't see how he can avoid putting at risk the Third Congressional or the Senate seat. Not that I'm terribly concerned about that.

Affirmative Action: Complaining Signer Wasn't Registered

Earlier in the month, I wrote about claims that petition circulators for an initiative to end racial discrimination (including affirmative action) at the state level used deceit to collect signatures.

I quoted from the complaint sent by Chloe Johnson to the Secretary of State: "... I was approached by a petition circulator who asked me to sign a petition that would end discrimination in Colorado... I questioned this petitioner knowing that we already had laws to prevent this but he told me that they would no longer be effective in the following months."

I noted that, from three formal complaints and various news reports, Johnson offered the "single example of somebody who claims to have signed a petition after hearing deceitful claims from a petition circulator."

Now, it turns out, Johnson was not eligible to sign the petition, because she was not registered to vote.

FaceTheState reports:

A Democrat state legislative aide who had claimed to be a victim of voter fraud saw her complaint dismissed after state officials learned that she was not a registered voter.

On February 26, Chloe Johnson filed a complaint with Secretary of State Mike Coffman's office alleging that she was tricked into supporting Amendment 46, also known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, a ballot effort designed to end race and gender preferences in government hiring, education, and contracting. The complaint was formally dismissed by the state's Office of Administrative Courts because Johnson never registered to vote.

“I wasn’t a registered elector at the time, so they dismissed my case,” said Johnson. “I thought I was registered and that I registered last year when I turned 18.” ...

Johnson claims that she signed the petition because she believes in “preventing discrimination anywhere," but that after signing it and during the course of her legislative internship with Rep. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, she became outraged when she learned that the initiative would not "end discrimination," but was "in fact a petition for anti-affirmative action." ...

Upset by this revelation, Johnson says she called the office of Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, and requested that her name be removed from the petition. She was instructed to contact Coffman's office about the matter, which she did, leading her to subsequently file a complaint.

So, given that Johnson's claim is bunk, and given that affirmative action is a type of discrimination, I have yet to hear a single, credible, first-hand account of someone who claims to have signed the petition after being deceived.

And this was a story worthy of the attention of the mighty New York Times?

If there is a real problem here, then surely someone can point me to actual evidence showing a problem. I will be happy to post an update just as soon as somebody does that.

Affirmative Action: Vandenberg Challenges Connerly

Ward Connerly of California is involved in a petition effort in Colorado to end affirmative action at the level of state government. Bill Vandenberg is the "Co-Executive Director" (though there seems to be only one director) of the Colorado Progressive Coalition. Vandenberg is also the co-chair of the Colorado Unity Coalition, an organization that supports affirmative action. The upshot of the story is that Vandenberg's coalition has challenged the initiative with the Secretary of State, claiming that petitioners deceived some people who signed it.*

Let us first turn to the specific complaints lodged by Vandenberg's organization.

The story has been covered by The New York Times, the Associated Press, and The Denver Post. The Post also made available a document described as "the formal complaints that have been filed with the secretary of state."

Following are the specific allegations of deceit reported by those stories and the "formal complaints."

* From the Post: a petition circulator "implied it was a pro-affirmative-action amendment." Implied? Those are weak grounds for a legal challenge.

* From the AP and the "formal complaints:" Candace Frie claims in the complaint, "[T]he petitioner... explained that it was an initiative to help end discrimination against all people." According to the AP, "She said she signed a petition outside a grocery store in Arvada when a man approached her saying the initiative would promote civil rights." But the petitioner described the initiative exactly correctly in this case. The initiative states, "The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin." Affirmative action is a form of discrimination. Its supporters claim that it is a good form of discrimination, but it is discrimination nonetheless.

* From the Times: "Freddie Whitney was walking out of a King Soopers supermarket here this winter when she was approached by three young men. They politely asked if she was against discrimination and, if so, if she would sign a petition that would legally end the practice in the state." Again, the petitioners explained the initiative correctly in this case.

* From the Times: "People were told that this would end discrimination, in some cases that it would actually support affirmative action," Mr. Vandenberg said. If people were told that the measure would "support affirmative action," then that was indeed deceitful.

* From the "formal complaints:" Tracy Seat writes, "The first petition collector... [was] explaining that the petition was for a ballot issue that would restore 'equality in the workplace.' ... I asked the petitioner if this petition was to eliminate affirmative action, because that was what the language of the petition sounded like. He replied that it 'could' eliminate some of the provisions. I had to ask very specifically a couple of times and press him for an answer before he would admit that the measure would in fact eliminate affirmative action." A second petitioner "stated that she believed we don't need affirmative action any more." In other words, while the petitioners might have been coy, there were basically honest about the initiative.

Notably, Seat never claims to have signed the petition, so how exactly is this an example of a problem?

(Also, Seat complains that the petition circulators were not showing identification per statute 1-40-112(2)(B). However, if Vandenberg's group wishes to check the statute, they will find in the Annotations the fact that the identification requirements were found to be unconstitutional.)

* From the "formal complaints:" Chloe Johnson writes, "... I was approached by a petition circulator who asked me to sign a petition that would end discrimination in Colorado... I questioned this petitioner knowing that we already had laws to prevent this but he told me that they would no longer be effective in the following months." The first part of the petitioner circulator's (alleged) statements is true, the second part is deceitful.

So, from the documents listed, we get a sum total of three alleged instances of deceit on the part of a petition circulator. One of the instances is a mere "implication," and another is second-hand from Vandenberg. This leaves a single example of somebody who claims to have signed a petition after hearing deceitful claims from a petition circulator. While I suppose that others have legitimate complaints, I have to wonder why the documents listed are so short on good examples. Even one example of deceit is cause for concern, yet there is not a single initiative that would be exempt from a few complaints.

* * *

At this point I want to make some more general comments about the story.

I've met Vandenberg and I respect him, even though we disagree on most issues. He and I have been on the same page several times; we both supported the effort to reform Colorado's asset forfeiture laws, and I cheered on his effort to require police officers to hand out business cards to people they stop but don't arrest. We agree on various other polices. But in the realm of economics, we disagree about practically everything.

I support the initiative to end state-sponsored affirmative action. First, I believe that state-sponsored affirmative action (as opposed to affirmative action by organizations not part of or funded by the state) violates or at least strains the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, I believe that the proper way to advance the interests of minorities is to achieve a quality education system for minority youth. (I further hold that market education is the only way to achieve such quality, but that topic is too far afield for this post.) College is simply too late. Third, I believe that, where state funds are concerned, employees should be hired because they are the most qualified applicants, not because of their race or gender.

But the present story is about the proper way to put initiatives on the ballot, not about the fact that Vandenberg obviously opposes the measure, while I support it.

I would like to suggest that Vandenberg show restraint. Nearly every initiative uses paid petition circulators. Indeed, the same circulator might, at different times, collect signatures for two opposing measures.

The fact is that politics is complicated. Legislators, lawyers, judges, and juries regularly disagree about the meaning of statutes. It is inevitable that petition circulators will present a petition in a way that others can call into question. If Vandenberg is successful at challenging Connerly's initiative, does he imagine that the tactic will stop there? It will not. If Vandenberg can imagine any future initiative that he himself might support, I encourage him not to create a hyper-litigious atmosphere in which activists are trailing petition circulators in the hopes of catching some misstatement on tape.

Of course, while petition circulators can make honest mistakes and can honestly disagree about various elements of various petitions, outright deceit is clearly out of bounds. It should be most strongly discouraged by the sponsors of the initiative. There are three main reasons for this. First, dishonesty is morally wrong, and it fosters a generally less-honest society. Second, petition circulators should truthfully represent the nature of the initiative in order to advertise its existence. Third, as the present story demonstrates, dishonest circulators can create extremely negative publicity for the initiative in question.

What, then, is the proper remedy? First and foremost, it is the responsibility of people who sign petitions to read the language. If you trust the lingo of the circulator over the actual language of the initiative, then frankly you are the person most at fault. If you can't take an initiative seriously enough to read its language, then why are you signing the petition in the first place? Do you sign contracts without reading them, too?

Indeed, the petitions themselves urge signers to read the language. Following is the relevant statute:

1-40-110. Warning - ballot title.

(1) At the top of each page of every initiative or referendum petition section shall be printed, in a form as prescribed by the secretary of state, the following:

"WARNING:
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW:
For anyone to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure.

DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE.

Before signing this petition, you are encouraged to read the text or the title of the proposed initiative or referred measure."

Iif you do sign a petition without bothering to read and evaluate it, then don't blame somebody else for your own civic failure.

That said, if petition circulators are genuinely found to use deceit in favor of some initiative, then organizations are right to go after them in the public arena. But I maintain that lodging legal challenges is usually not the proper way to go, unless the level of deceit is egregious or somebody is actually physically altering the petitions or some such.

According to The Denver Post, "Penalties for fraud could include disqualifying the batches of signatures collected by canvassers found to have misled voters. Errant petitioners could also face $500 fines and up to a year in county jail, [Rich] Coolidge [spokesman for the secretary of state] said." I believe that Coolidge is referring to 1-40-130, which is rather vague.

My read is that Vandenberg's group has a legitimate complaint, but not a legitimate legal challenge. Vandenberg earned publicity for his cause, but if he successfully presses the legal challenge he may make it more difficult -- and more expensive -- for any group to gather signatures. It would indeed be ironic if the result of Vandenberg's "progressive" challenge was to further advantage those with more money.

* April 6 update: While I originally claimed that Vandenberg's group challenged the measure "in court," that's not quite right. The Post reports that the challenge sets "the stage for a potential lawsuit," and that the "three formal complaints... have been sent [by the Secretary of State] to administrative law judges for evaluation, Coolidge said."