Forty-Nine Reasons to Vote Ritter Out

On May 30, 2008, my vehicle registration cost $37.17. On July 13, 2009, my vehicle registration cost $86.48.

That's about a $49 difference. For me, that's forty-nine reasons to vote Bill Ritter out of office. State politicians are doing everything they can to squeeze residents at the exact time when many residents are suffering from the recession (my wife took a ten percent pay cut, for example).

And I drive a cheap clunker; most people will find that they have many more reasons to vote against Ritter.

I also had to pay $30 to the City and County of Denver for expired tags, but obviously I won't hold that against Ritter. (My only satisfaction in the matter was writing "Legalized Theft" in the "For" line of the check.) The reason my tags expired is that the DMV sent my notification form to my old address, so obviously I never got it. (My wife thinks we sent in change of address forms.) I didn't notice that the month tag was out of date, but the meter maid sure noticed. Because, you know, it's not enough that I pay taxes to pave Denver's roads or feed quarters into Denver's meters.

I should note that the registration fee seems to have covered an extra two months to cover the expiration, but still, that's a hefty "fee" increase.

Tomorrow I have to take my wife's car in for the same reason, and then I suspect I'll have about another hundred reasons to hate Ritter and his Democratic party. [Update: to my pleasant surprise, the tax on our second car actually went down substantially, apparently because the car hit its tenth year.]

Of course, my whole plan of helping to vote Ritter out of office depends upon Republicans running a candidate who's not even worse than Ritter, which was the problem last time around.

Kim Pleasant: Whiner of the Day

I've decided to start issuing periodic "Whiner of the Day" awards. The first goes to Kim Pleasant, who shouted down Governor Bill Ritter yesterday. (I don't get many chances to defend Bill Ritter.)

Jessica Fender and Allison Sherry of the Denver Post recount the story:

About two dozen members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 crashed the Capitol gathering, standing watch in the back and shouting challenges to Ritter regarding his recent veto of House Bill 1170.

The bill would have made it easier for them to receive unemployment benefits if grocery-chain management locked them out of their work sites and potentially improved their standing in ongoing contract negotiations.

Ritter spoke to the protesters from the podium, saying "certainly my heart is with the people who have to put food on the table," but the state should not interfere with active labor disputes.

But his answers didn't satisfy Commerce City resident and Safe way worker Kim Pleasant, who shouted, "That is a lie! That is a lie!"

Ritter's veto of 1170 is one of the few things he's done right. If you're stupid enough to go on strike in the middle of a recession, when nearly one in ten people have lost their jobs and many more have taken pay cuts, the last thing you deserve is a tax subsidy for your stupidity. Just try to go on strike and see how much public sympathy you get.

The simple fact is that the typical job at the grocery store requires no special skills, training, or education. If you want a higher-paying job, then go back to school and work someplace else. But don't shout down the governor for protecting taxpayers (for once). At least wait till Ritter lies before calling him a liar.

So, Kim Pleasant, I'm pleased to name you the recipient of the first "Whiner of the Day" award. Please e-mail me your mailing address and I'll be happy to send you your award.

But don't take this as any indication that I'm pleased with Ritter's performance. While he did the right thing this one time, the general theme of his administration has been, "Screw the Taxpayer." Ritter has helped increase taxes or fees on vehicles, hospital visits, properties, sales, and so on.

As Fender and Sherry write, at the same event Ritter signed bills interfering in mortgages and offering more tax dollars for people not to work. Because, you know, during a recession we want to punish people who are working in order to incentivize others not to work.

I can hardly believe the incompetent and anti-freedom Republican Party left me no choice other than to vote for this sham of a governor.

Building Taxes: A Tale of Three Cities

Three different Colorado newspapers recently published stories about how three different cities are handling building taxes in this time of economic recession. The cities are Denver, Loveland, and Boulder.

The Denver Business Journal reports, "The city of Denver will offer free building permits through the first half of June for home-improvement projects as a way to encourage economy-boosting renovation work. ... Building-permit fees normally range from $20 to several thousand dollars, depending on the value of the project."

Did you get that? A building permit for a home-improvement project can cost you as much as several thousand dollars! The city is implicitly granting that these high fees (or taxes; the difference between those terms is increasingly meaningless) hurt economic development. For two weeks the city will stop screwing home owners. But what about the rest of the time?

Still, this is the best story from among our three cities.

The Fort Collins Coloradoan reports:

McWhinney, Loveland Commercial and other developers will ask the Loveland City Council on Tuesday for a 25 percent reduction of 10 permitting fees in hopes of stimulating building in the city.

The reduction would last 18 months and target the city's community expansion fees, commonly referred to as CEFs. The fees generate revenue for streets, parks, recreation, trails, open space, the public library, the museum, general government, fire protection and law enforcement, assistant city manager Rod Wensing said.

The CEFs together cost $11,339 for every residential building permit issued in the city of Loveland.

So Loveland may give home owners a slight break for a year and a half.

And Boulder? Surely the city is following suit and considering easing building taxes and fees? Of course not.

Boulder's Daily Camera blared the headline, "Taxes on new Boulder developments could skyrocket." The paper reports, "For more than a year, the council has been studying whether to replace the city's voter-approved excise tax structure with an impact-fee system that circumvents voter approval and raises the amounts charged on new development."

The new taxes would be used to fund government projects and "affordable housing." Because Boulder has made housing so expensive through its building controls that few can afford housing there. So obviously Boulder needs to charge higher taxes on housing in order to make it more affordable. During a recession. Huh.

The unsophisticated layperson unacquainted with higher Boulder logic might imagine that such taxes would make housing less affordable for some in order to give others a government handout.

It's the sort of plan that has given Boulder its national reputation.

So Long, Free Market

Now it is perfectly normal for politicians and bureaucrats to determine the fate of businesses:

"An early start, deep political ties and important racing connections have given one of two competing Aurora racetrack proposals the inside track on millions of dollars in tax incentives crucial to getting either project off the ground."

Remember that a "tax incentive" for some means the same thing as screwing everybody else relatively harder. It seems likely that this particular race track may have won out without political interference, but, increasingly, we'll never know whether a business succeeded because it's a good business or because it's a politically connected one.

This business-by-tax-engineering is repulsive. (But not to its "bipartisan" supporters.)

Barter Versus Taxes

Kevin Simpson wrote up an article for the Denver Post, "Barter system booms in Colo." Simpson talked to a few people who have been trading goods and services directly, but I'm surprised that he didn't mention the tax ramifications.

I Googled "'tax income' barter," and the top hit is the following information from the Internal Revenue Service:

Topic 420 - Bartering Income

Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. The fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide must be included in income in the year received.

Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X. Refer to Topic 308 for Amended Return information.

A barter exchange or barter club is any person or organization with members or clients that contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to jointly trade or barter property or services. The term does not include arrangements that provide solely for the informal exchange of similar services on a noncommercial basis.

The Internet has provided a medium for new growth in the bartering exchange industry. This growth prompts the following reminder: Barter exchanges are required to file Form 1099-B for all transactions unless certain exceptions are met. Refer to Barter Exchanges for additional information on this subject. If you are in a business or trade, you may be able to deduct certain costs you incurred to perform the work that was bartered. If you exchanged property or services through a barter exchange, you should receive a Form 1099-B (PDF), Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions. The IRS also will receive the same information.

Please refer to our Bartering page [see the original document for related links] for more information on bartering income and bartering exchanges.

And how many people bartering in Colorado are filling out the legally required forms and paying the legally required taxes? My guess is the percent is less than two.

In today's world, you can hardly do anything without being required to fill out a bunch of government forms and pay some bureaucrat or other protection money. There's nothing so simple, straightforward, or beneficial that bureaucrats can't turn it into a legal nightmare. The IRS's documentation reads like it comes out of the world of Brazil.

The IRS imagines that barterers are going to refer to Topic 308 so that they can fill out Form 1040X. Good luck with that.

"I hereby inform you under powers entrusted to me under Section 476 that Mr. Buttle, Archibald, residing at 412 North Tower, Shangri La Towers, has been invited to assist the Ministry of Information with certain inquiries and that he is liable to certain financial obligations as specified in Council Order RB-stroke-C-Z-stroke-nine-O-seven-stroke-X."

No Tax Funds for Religious Schools

David Card, "president of Escuela de Guadalupe, an independent Catholic, dual-language school in northwest Denver," made a series of astounding comments in an article for the Denver Post today.

Card argues that some religious schools "are effective in developing Colorado standards-based academic proficiency in subjects like math, reading and science, and in producing high school graduates." No doubt. But then Card adds, "Clearly, the state has an interest in this."

Clearly, Card has lost his faculties. The government's job is to protect people's rights, not dictate education policy for private schools. Many parents flee to private schools precisely to get away from political interference. Card would extend that interference to schools that are currently private.

Card argues that the state -- i.e., politicians -- should finance religious schools (presumably including his own). He pretends that politicians can force other Coloradans to finance only "non-sectarian efforts" by religious schools. The division is impossible. A religious school of necessity infuses its entire program with its ideological premises.

I left the following comments online:

"No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent." -- Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 4

Forcing a person to finance a religious institution, against his will, violates his freedom of conscience and right to property. Moreover, no conscientious religious school would willingly accept the political interference that inevitably follows political funding.

Legislature Passes Job-Killing Bills

The following article originally was published in the May 11, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

Legislature passes job-killing bills

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The Colorado legislature is pro-business in roughly the same way that throwing a dog a bone after beating him mercilessly is pro-dog.

That didn't stop three journalists -- Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal, Peter Marcus of the Denver Daily News, and Steven Paulson of the Associated Press -- from regurgitating political propaganda last week about "job creation" bills and calling it news.

So now we'll give you the full story. (We figure if you're going to get lame editorials on the news pages elsewhere, you might as well get some real news on the editorial pages here.)

The main "jobs" measure in question is House Bill 1001, fawned over by politicians, bureaucrats, and various journalists alike. While the measure features Democrats as lead sponsors, various Republicans also signed on, including Steve King and Josh Penry.

Bill 1001 adds several new pages of tortured legalese to the Colorado statutes (section 39-22-531, because we know you'll want to look it up later) allowing the Colorado Economic Development Commission, at its discretion, to offer a "job growth incentive tax credit," as calculated in accordance with the bill.

And what is the Colorado Economic Development Commission? Its web page notes, "It consists of nine members five of whom are appointed by the Governor, two by the President of the Senate and two by the Speaker of the House."

Those of you who thought we lived in a free-market economy were sorely mistaken. Now we have a bureaucratic commission to help set the rules of business and determine the winners and losers. Business is no longer about offering goods and services on a level playing field where the laws apply the same to everybody. Now business is about sucking up to the Commissars for special political favors.

Bill 1001 is about taxing businesses with existing jobs more in order to reduce the tax burden on businesses with "new" jobs. And we're supposed to swallow the notion that these discriminatory taxes are fair.

The hidden premise behind Bill 1001 is that taxes kill jobs, a premise with which we agree. Yet, instead of reducing taxes across the board so that everyone can benefit equally, the legislature wants to reward politically-correct and politically-connected businesses at the expense of everybody else.

And Bill 1001 is the good news of the legislative session. Remember, even the Democrat-controlled legislature implicitly grants that taxes kill jobs. Therefore, the legislature has done everything it can to increase taxes during the current recession. (Note that the governor had not acted on some of these bills as of our deadline.)

During this recession, many taxpayers are taking a hit, either in reduced work, reduced wages, or less business. Yet, rather than take an equal hit, Governor Bill Ritter just signed a $17.9 billion state budget, or about $3,500 for every man, woman, and child. While the total budget is less than the $18.6 billion for 2008-09, it exceeds the $17.2 billion for 2007-08 (as relayed by the Joint Budget Committee).

To keep state spending high, the legislature has looked for new ways to make people pay. Two of the worst bills of the session raise fees on cars and hospital visits. During a recession the legislature must screw drivers and the sick especially hard to fund more bureaucracy.

Senate Bill 108, the Denver Post reports, would increase the "cost of vehicle registration by an average of $41 for typical vehicles." We continue to wonder where all our gasoline tax dollars are going.

House Bill 1293, laughably called the "Health Care Affordability Act of 2009," would impose "hospital provider fees... on outpatient and inpatient services provided by all licensed or certified hospitals."

You see, this fee will make your health care more "affordable" by forcing you to pay more for the health care of others. (Paging Dr. Orwell.)

In order to hide these fees from patients, the legislature helpfully included the following line: "A hospital shall not include any amount of the provider fee as a separate line item in its billing statements."

As we have discussed, the real problem is that the federal government forces hospitals to provide care without compensation. But the solution to the problem is to repeal those federal controls, not force even more wealth redistribution.

The legislature also passed bills to increase capital-gains taxes (bill 1366), cigarette taxes (bill 1342), and net sales taxes (bill 212). (Though we gave the Denver Business Journal a bit of heck earlier, we gratefully acknowledge the paper's reporting on these bills.)

But doesn't the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights require voter approval for all such hikes? Silly taxpayer. You have obviously confused the plain language of TABOR with the Colorado Supreme Court's transcendent reasoning. (For details, see ClearTheBenchColorado.org.)

We haven't even gotten into the bills that increase the costs of doing business and reward people for not working.

We do have one thing to be thankful for: the legislature has disbanded till January.

Around Colorado: May 4, 2009

Arvada's Economic Non-Development

Now this is investigative reporting: Face the State published an article titled, "Arvada Redevelopment Project Sits Mostly Vacant, Costing Taxpayers Nearly $800,000."

The article begins:

After the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority condemned and forcibly acquired an elderly small business owner's property in 2004, the land was transferred to a private developer who was given the property free of charge. Now city leaders and other project supporters are lauding the project with awards, despite the fact that the new development sits mostly vacant. The total tab to taxpayers thus far is estimated at nearly $800,000 and counting.

Governments, including city governments, simply should not be in the business of "economic redevelopment." Such central economic planning invariably employs political force through eminent domain, zoning, or taxation. Politicians can't ably plan the economy. Leave that to free individuals working together voluntarily with their own resources. What city officials can and should do is get out of the way of economic progress.


Fake Free Speech

In a predictably wishy-washy editorial, the Denver Post worries about the FCC's ability to fine stations for "fleeting expletives," but adds, "We believe that protecting children from adult programming and swear words is important..."

Parents who wish to protect their children from naughty words are perfectly free to do so. They can choose whether to purchase a television or radio and whether to leave it turned on to any particular station.

The FCC, properly called the Federal Censorship Commission, should be completely disbanded.


'Job Creation Bills'

The Associated Press claims that Governor "Bill Ritter is preparing to sign two of the top job-creation and business-development bills this session." A centerpiece of the legislation is granting "businesses that create at least 20 jobs" tax breaks.

But if giving businesses tax breaks creates jobs, then doesn't taxing all other businesses destroy jobs, damage the economy, lower wages, and increases prices on consumer goods? Of course it does. But, somehow, when Ritter signs a $17.9 billion state budget, he doesn't describe that as the "economy-crushing bill."

Also, why is it great to generate twenty jobs but not, say, nineteen? Isn't it better if two companies each create fifteen jobs than if one company creates twenty? Yet the discriminatory taxes will punish the two smaller businesses and give the larger business a break. Because, under Colorado tax law, some tax payers are more equal than others.


Clear the Bench

Matt Arnold has set up a new organization called Clear the Bench Colorado, an effort to urge voters to decline to retain the four State Supreme Court justices up for vote next year.

In an April 29 speech, Arnold explained why this is an important opportunity to vote against the taxpayer-hating Supreme Court.

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.

Republicans Win One: Bradford Bests Buescher

I'm not entirely displeased to see that Republican Laura Bradford beat incumbent Bernie Buescher in the Grand Junction state house race. Back in 2005, my dad and I blasted Buescher for supporting higher net taxes and for earning a zero rating from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers.

Still, Bradford barely pulled off a surprise upset in a county that went 63 percent for McCain.

In this race, as in races across Colorado and the nation, voters were faced with a choice of two evils: political force in our private lives versus political force in our economic lives.

In a video on her web page, Bradford criticizes Buescher and Governor Bill Ritter for wanting "higher taxes" and the obstruction of drilling. "My priorities are lower taxes, more jobs, a strong economy," Bradford says. She won on economic issues.

Yet elsewhere on her page she reaches out to the religious right:

Laura supports all life: the unborn, the unprotected, and elderly, the unwanted. She believes that the constitution ensures that ---the endowed rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Laura would support the efforts of lawmakers to define 'personhood' to include the unborn. Two recent cases in Mesa County, where a baby died after it was born due to grievous injuries caused to its mother, yet charges are not able to be brought against those who inflicted the injuries. Even in states like California, the baby of Lacy Peterson, little Connor Peterson, was considered a person, and his father charged and sentenced in the cause of his death.

NARAL (The National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws) is the political action arm of the pro-choice movement. During 2007, based on a point system—points assigned for actions IN SUPPORT of NARAL, Representative Bernie Buescher received a rating of 100. ...

Laura would not support any legislation changing the meaning of marriage from one man and one woman.

Laura does not oppose, however, the right for gays to have civil unions, shared estates, medical visitation or other common rights protected for all citizens.

Laura does not support the discrimination of any person.

Notice that Bradford is not shrilly anti-homosexual, as are many Republicans; the debate over marriage versus civil unions is a fair one. And Bradford's concern over criminal penalties for those who harm a woman's fetus do not justify her broader position, for criminal penalties can be applied based on the violation of the woman's rights. While she does not recognize the far-reaching implications of Amendment 48, the personhood measure, at least she doesn't run on those implications (which is both good and bad).

The Denver Post reports that Buescher said that "Republicans attacked him for his support of Ritter's controversial mill-levy freeze that kept tax rates from dropping and on oil and gas issues. Also, he was hit for his support of Senate Bill 200, a measure that bans discrimination based on a person's religious beliefs or sexual orientation."

S.B. 200 indicates what's wrong in the standard debate over homosexuality. The religious right declares homosexuality a sin, consistently demonizes homosexuals, and aims to legally discriminate against them. The left wants to force people to associate with homosexuals in violation of the rights of property, contract, and expression -- that is what 200 accomplishes. How can homosexuals ask for the right to contract freely when some refuse to recognize the equal rights of others? The correct position is that homosexuality is fine and should be socially accepted, homosexuals should have their rights fully respected, but those hostile to homosexuals also have rights that should be respected, even when they practice those rights badly. So beating up Buescher over 200 was entirely appropriate.

From what I can tell, Buescher lost for all the right reasons. And that is another bit of good news regarding election day in Colorado.

Election Blues and Reviews III: Tax Hikes Lose

See also Part I, "Created Equal," and Part II, Religious Right Loses."

Something extraordinary happened in Colorado: at the same time voters elected Democrats throughout most of the state, they also rejected several tax hikes on the state ballot. So Democrats would do well not to interpret the election results as a mandate for big-government, tax-and-spend, anti-liberty, regressive "progressivism." This election was fundamentally a defeat of the Republicans, not a victory for the left's agenda. (For example, I voted for several Democrats and not a single Republican this year, yet I hardly endorse the Democrats' corporate welfare, tax hikes, and central planning.)

If national Democrats want to stay in power, they would do well to follow the lead of Colorado Democrats, and run a moderate agenda, pay off their special interests as little as politically feasible, and refrain from pissing off the nation's honorable gun owners.

The big news of of the night is that Amendment 59, the cleverly written net tax hike superficially for education, lost by a healthy margin. (See all of the ballot results.) To review quickly, 59 would have forever wiped out the tax refunds of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), thus raising net taxes forever. The measure was brilliantly conceived in that it didn't raise the rate at which taxes are collected, it allocated the money to education, and it created a "savings account." Yet, as opponents pointed out, it would merely have freed up existing money for other purposes.

Obviously the measure went down to defeat because of the article I wrote against it back in September. Kidding. Diana Hsieh put up a great web page against the measure. Penn Pfiffner and the Independence Institute put out some material criticizing the measure. Douglas Bruce, known as the father of TABOR, mailed out a flyer attacking the measure. And various bloggers joined the chorus singing no.

But I have to say I figured 59 would win. Its backers raised substantial funds and organized an effective grassroots campaign. I thought this was Referendum C all over again. Meanwhile, Jon Caldara was busy with his failed effort to curb union funding, and Hsieh and I were busy fighting Amendment 48. It's tough when Team Liberty has to go up against the religious right and the statist left at the same time.

In the end three things worked together to defeat 59, I think. First, a lot of voters remember Referendum C, TaxTracks, etc., etc. When is enough enough? Second, the economy is a little shaky, and people realize they can put their own money to good use. Third, with so many ballot measures, I think "no" became the default vote for many.

Two other important tax hikes also failed: 51 and 58. And they lost by wide margins that surprised me. Amendment 51 would have raised the sales tax for "people with developmental disabilities," while 58 would have raised net taxes on energy producers.

Other Ballot Measures

I was sorry to see Amendment 49 lose. That would have prevented government from diverting funds from the paychecks of government employees to unions. But 49 got lumped in with two anti-union measures that I opposed: 47 ("right to work") and 54 (limiting campaign contributions by government contractors). It's too bad that, in their anti-union zeal, the conservatives didn't think about protecting individual rights. Had 49 run solo on the ballot, it would have had a much better chance.

Amendment 46, which would have banned race-based affirmative action by government, remains close, but it appears to be going down. That's too bad, but its practical implications would have been slight.

The other measure worth noting, Referendum O, went down to defeat. It would have made it harder to amend the state's constitution by ballot. So it's status quo.

As far as the ballot measures go, the big news is that 48 and 59 lost. Those were the two most important issues, they were both bad, and they both went down. And that's a big reason why I'm relatively pleased with the election results.

In the next and final part, I lay out a plan for the GOP to regroup and develop a new winning coalition.

Gaming the Voter Guide in Jefferson County

I actually had to dig my Jefferson County voter guide out of the trash after I read this story from the Denver Post. Thomas Graham of Arvada totally gamed the guide.

Here are Graham's comments, published at taxpayer expense:

The following summaries were prepared from comments filed by persons FOR the proposal: ...

Senior citizens with fixed incomes are hard-pressed to shoulder increases in property tax. These people should recognize that their reduced productivity calls for them to be replaced by the youth of our nation. This measure calls for some of the property taxes to be earmarked for: "Expanding options for career job skills and technical training to prepare students for today's work world." Half of these should be committed to the following:

Seniors on fixed incomes, to whom this school tax is burdensome, need training, as well as compassion. They must be offered the opportunity to learn how to locate more modest accommodations than those they currently occupy, and how to cope, in other communities if necessary.

This tax increase furthers the goals of our teacher unions. It is consistent with a presidential candidate's promise for change, and hope for progress toward the Socialist utopia through education. This increase could create a pad until the oppressive TABOR measures can be repealed, and the Amendment 23 extra millions for schools be made permanent. The same criteria and logic should be applied in consideration of ballot question 3B, resulting in a resounding approval of the $754 million debt. This will add as much as $69 million to the $34 million for 3A, annually, a picayune amount considering the future of our youth and well-being of the District's employees.

The Post reports:

Superintendent Cindy Stevenson said the district was prevented by law from substantially changing or eliminating Graham's comments.

Graham submitted the language minutes before the deadline for inclusion in the booklet that voters began receiving this weekend, Stevenson said.

The district's lawyers said case law prohibits "substituting their judgment with our judgment," Stevenson said.

The language is totally inappropriate (even if it's hysterical). As much as I like the spending restrictions of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, I don't like the provision that requires tax funding for the distribution of people's opinions about ballot measures.

Article X, Section 20, subsection 3(b)(v) states that a voter guide must be sent out with the following:

Two summaries, up to 500 words each, one for and one against the proposal, of written comments filed with the election officer by 45 days before the election. No summary shall mention names of persons or private groups, nor any endorsements of or resolutions against the proposal. Petition representatives following these rules shall write this summary for their petition. The election officer shall maintain and accurately summarize all other relevant written comments. The provisions of this subparagraph (v) do not apply to a statewide ballot issue, which is subject to the provisions of section 1 (7.5) of article V of this constitution.

I wish TABOR had been simpler; maybe then it would not have been continually eroded.

Update: 9News reports additional interesting details on the matter. It turns out that Graham is 84 years old -- one of the senior citizens of which he writes.

Jefferson County Schools superintendent Cindy Stevenson said (9News reports), "This did not come from Citizens for Jeffco Schools or from the district... I want to be very clear, we cherish our seniors. The statement in there is cruel."

No, what's cruel is Stevenson's plan to forcibly take more money from citizens like Graham to spend on other people's education (and, incidentally, Stevenson's own salary). The proposal is cruel; Graham's statement merely reveals that cruelty.

Vote No on 48, 59: Two New Web Sites

Diana Hsieh has created two new web pages criticizing Colorado's Amendments 48 and 59.

"Vote No on Amendment 59" describes what the measure would do -- and why it's a bad idea. As Diana points out, one problem with the measure is that it would expand political control of other areas:

Amendment 59 isn't about increasing funding for Colorado's government schools. Instead, the measure frees up general funds currently spent on education. So it enables politicians to spend more of your money on their pet projects.

Even the supporters of Amendment 59 admit that. The Rocky Mountain News quoted Amendment 59 supporter Carol Hedges of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute as saying that "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." The same story also quoted David Miller of the Denver Foundation as saying: "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."

Hsieh's page against 48 summarizes the paper that she and I wrote, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," and links to related letters, releases, and articles.

For her work Diana deserves the praise of all Coloradans who care about liberty.

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.

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 every year, and set up a rainy-day fund, yet those reforms are possible without the net tax hike. Andrew Romanoff and his Democratic pals are essentially threatening Colorado voters: give us more tax money, or we'll refuse to fix existing problems.

Berny Morson, author the newspaper article, also reports, "Exactly how much money is involved is by no means clear. The legislative staff's five-year financial projection shows no excess revenue that would be refunded to taxpayers, Romanoff said. But opponents say the amount could be substantial when the economy again hits good times." Colorado voters should remember that the measure wipes out the TABOR refund forever.

Economist Swings By Colorado

The Economist thinks it knows why Colorado has gone to the Democrats (via Paul). More Californians, more Hispanics.

But there is a more important reason for the Republicans' woes: their elected representatives are bonkers.

In the 1970s the state party came under the sway of an anti-tax, anti-big government group known as the “House crazies”. This included Tom Tancredo, now a congressional scourge of illegal immigrants. The House crazies eventually joined forces with an equally fierce group of social conservatives rooted in Colorado Springs, headquarters of the evangelical Focus on the Family. ...

More than one lawmaker has got into trouble for comparing homosexuality to bestiality. The small-government wing remains incensed that voters suspended a tax-restraining measure in 2005, even though it was crippling the state's finances.

This is part right, part wrong, and part stupid.

Let's start with the stupid. How exactly is forcibly preventing Colorado businesses from hiring workers from Mexico and elsewhere consistent with an "anti-big government" stance? Instead, Tancredo represents the populist wing of the Republican Party that has alienated both metropolitan sophisticates -- Colorado is a highly educated state -- and Hispanics. (It turns out that people tend not to vote for you when you threaten to forcibly round up their friends and neighbors and kick them out of the country.)

Now on to the wrong. The claim that taxes restraints were "crippling the state's finances" is just recycling The Denver Post's garbage. What was crippling the state's finances was the insatiable spending habits of politicians.

What The Economist gets right is that Republicans have alienated independents and secular free-marketeers with their incessant calls for faith-based politics. Republicans complain that the left has been spending money like crazy. Well, maybe if the Republicans hadn't constantly berated and condemned homosexuals, they wouldn't have induced rich homosexuals to fight back. (Not that that's where all the money is coming from.) Only Republicans act surprised when people get offended when they're told they're going to hell, tearing apart the culture, corrupting the youth, and engaging in sex comparable to bestiality. Who ever would have thought?

It turns out that Westerners get a little nervous when a Republican running for governor gets a running mate who claims we have no constitutionally-protected freedom from religion.

But Republicans finally seem to be figuring some of this stuff out. For example, Bob Schaffer, who has claimed he wants to end all abortion, recently came out against Amendment 48, which seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person. However, now Schaffer just looks like a spineless jerk. He told the Rocky Mountain News, "I think there are other strategies and tactics that get us far closer to advancing the cause of human life." Is that squishing sound water in your shoes? We'll see whether Schaffer's dodge can save him. Meanhile, his opponent, Mark Udall, has strongly endorsed the separation of church and state. Does that matter? I'll put it to you this way. I cannot think of a single issue other than that where I agree with Mark Udall (though I'm sure there's something). Yet, this November, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him. At least he knows what he believes on the matter and isn't afraid to say.

Initiative Killers

In leading up to a story about American expatriation, I'll start with a personal encounter with bureaucracy.

I'm starting up a small-scale side business that involves mail order. While mail order outside of Colorado poses few problems, mail order within Colorado is a royal pain. There's actually a web page called TaxColorado.com, sort of the antithesis of FreeColorado.com, that takes you to the Colorado Department of Revenue.

One of the documents there describes the sales-tax nightmare in Colorado. If you're selling everything from a set location, you can figure out all of the relevant sales taxes, then charge all your customers the same tax rate. But if you're trying to ship items elsewhere in Colorado, matters are considerably more difficult.

Sellers are supposed to charge sales tax for all regions in common between the buyer and seller. I live in Westminster. Westminster spreads over two counties. Thus, several rates apply: Colorado, the RTD region, the football stadium region, the cultural tax region, the county tax, and the city tax. If I sell to somebody else in Westminster who lives in the other county, that's a different tax calculation. Here's a description of the RTD tax region:

The Regional Transportation District (RTD) levies a sales/use tax of 1.0% effective January 1, 2005. The RTD boundaries include the counties of Denver, Boulder, Broomfield (except certain areas immediately adjacent to I-25 and Highway 7 interchange), Jefferson, Adams (west of Box Elder Creek), Arapahoe (south of I-70 west of Picadilly Rd. to Jewell, then west of Gun Club Rd. to Quincy, then generally west of Monaghan Rd. including Arapahoe Park and Aurora Reservoir), and Douglas (northern portion plus Highlands Ranch), and parts of Weld County that have been annexed by the City of Longmont and the Town of Erie since 1994.

In the northern portion of Douglas County, the RTD boundaries consist of the city of Lone Tree (original Lone Tree), all annexed areas of Lone Tree, the Acres Green area, and the Park Meadows Mall (in unincorporated Douglas County and not in the city of Lone Tree).

You've got to be kidding me. In addition to all of the work of starting a new business, I now have to figure out which buyer does and which does not live the district described above. When I called the Department of Revenue to explain that this creates a logistical nightmare, the woman on the phone said, in essence, that's the way we do things around here.

I seriously considered two alternatives to starting this small-scale business, a venture that will probably lose me money for at least a couple of years. The first and most appealing alternative was simply to not start the business. Why spend so much effort and risk so much money only to put up with so many hours of bureaucratic hassle? It almost wasn't worth it to me. The second alternative I considered was to set up shop in a state with no sales tax. How many other small-scale operations have been shut down or driven out of state because of Colorado's tax hassle? And Colorado is considered to be relatively business-friendly!

As I've reviewed in the past, other things equal, people tend to move to states with more economic liberty. It should come as no surprise, then, that U.S. economic controls inspire some people to set up shop outside of the country. It's not that other countries are necessarily more free, but other regional attractions, coupled with increasingly stifling controls in America, can encourage some people to leave.

U.S. News reports:

...Matt Landau appears very much at home in Panama. One might even be tempted to call him an old hand were he not, at age 25, so confoundingly young. Part owner of this lovely boutique hotel in Panama City's historic Casco Viejo, he is also a travel writer (99 Things to Do in Costa Rica), a real estate marketing consultant, and editor of The Panama Report, an online news and opinion monthly. Between fielding occasional calls and text messages, the New Jersey native is explaining what drew him here, by way of Costa Rica, after he graduated from college in 2005. In addition to having great weather, pristine beaches, a rich melting-pot culture, a reliable infrastructure, and a clean-enough legal system, "what Panama is all about," he says, "is the chance to get into some kind of market first." ...

In his recent book Bad Money, political commentator Kevin Phillips warns that an unprecedented number of citizens, fed up with failed politics and a souring economy, have already departed for other countries, with even larger numbers planning to do so soon. ... [M]any... are entrepreneurs, teachers, or skilled knowledge workers in the globalized high-tech economy.

If American economic controls become more stifling, we'll lose more of those people who drive our prosperity. The possibility of getting "into some kind of market first" has little to do with the region and much to do with the economic controls of the region. It's not as though Americans have run out of markets: it's that high taxes and increasing controls have made getting into new markets more difficult or, in many cases, illegal.

Our "souring economy" is due to two main things: the housing crisis and high fuel costs. Notably, both of these problems were caused by politicians. Yaron Brook explains how politicians mucked up the housing market. High energy costs are the direct result of a decades-long campaign by environmentalists to shut down energy production and divert resources to "alternative" fuels such as corn gas (which has also increased food prices).

We still live in a vibrant and relatively strong economy, filled with opportunities. I love Colorado and I love the U.S. Still, the more politicians here trample economic liberty, the more free-spirited creators and producers will look elsewhere to fulfill their dreams.

TaxTracks Blows Budget -- Surprise, Surprise

Kevin Flynn of the Rocky Mountain News reports:

RTD conceded Friday that it cannot deliver the FasTracks program as promised to voters four years ago.

The program, originally budgeted at $4.7 billion when voters approved a sales tax to support it, rose to $6.1 billion last year and is poised for a substantial increase next month during budget talks with the elected board. ...

The program has been clobbered from two sides, with huge increases in the cost of construction materials and fuel, and a slowdown in the economy that has cut into the revenue RTD expected from the sales tax that underpins the financing.

Let's go back to basics. There is absolutely no reason for rail to be tax-subsidized at all. If rail lines offer a real economic benefit, then people will gladly pay sufficient fares to keep them in business. Rail lines easily can exclude non-payers, so that objection is gone. If the concern is the small fraction of poor riders, then a market rail service is perfectly free to price discriminate, say by offering discounted passes to the poor. Especially for non-peak travel, such price discrimination would add to the rail's revenues, as most costs are fixed. Alternately, those who wish to voluntarily subsidize transportation for the poor are perfectly free to do so. By relying on a sales tax, rail forcibly transfers money away from some poor people to some rich people, and that's wrong even according to egalitarianism.

Atop those economic reasons rests the simple fact that it is morally wrong to force people who don't use rail to subsidize those who do. People have the moral right to control their own income, to decide for themselves whether to fund rail, whether to use it, whether to invest in it, and whether to subsidize other people's transportation.

Now TaxTracks has run into the problem that the sales tax, set as a percentage of sales in the region, is subject to economic downturns. Notably, a real loan is not. A real loan is what a marketized RTD should have obtained. A real loan is what RTD could have paid off with paying users, if its services actually are demanded. RTD is complaining also about increased costs, but at the same time, presumably, more people are riding rail to avoid the gas pump.

On a free market, perhaps RTD still would have had to cut back or restructure with changing economic conditions. But, on a free market, RTD would not have made promises to taxpayers that it cannot keep.

Tax Hikes Part II

Referendum C was supposed to be the net tax hike to solve all our problems. Now, even though Referendum C pulled in dramatically more tax money than expected, Colorado's Democrats are proposing a new round of spending hikes.

In a June 24 e-mail (delivered early June 25), State House Speaker Andrew Romanoff announced, "A new initiative will give us a chance to fix the fiscal mess in Colorado's constitution. The proposal is called SAFE: Savings Account For Education."

The older SAFE stood for Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic. Call this one Statist Alternatives to the Freedom Epidemic. (I think somebody used the same acronym against the older SAFE, but I don't recall who.)

Or call it "Referendum C, Part II." Supporters of the new measure, "backed by a bipartisan coalition of business, education and civic leaders," are using the same game plan.

Romanoff writes:

Colorado's constitution contains conflicting commandments: one provision reduces revenue, while another increases spending. The net effect: chronic shortfalls in health care, higher education and other "optional" programs.

Referendum C brought us some relief: a five-year time-out from the revenue limit and a permanent fix to its ratchet effect. Hundreds of thousands of Coloradans are better off as a result, including 700 individuals with autism, Down syndrome, and other developmental disabilities, who will no longer be stuck on decade-long waiting lists for vital services; 25,000 at-risk children, who will be able to attend high-quality preschool and full-day kindergarten; and 50,000 uninsured children, who will receive medical coverage. (Click here for an annual report on Referendum C.)

Unfortunately, Referendum C’s time-out expires in 2010 -– jeopardizing much of our progress.

The obvious solution is to simply repeal the provision that increases spending. Cynics observe that Democrats supported that spending-hike measure precisely to undermine the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Romanoff fails to mention a detail about Referendum C: it permanently increased state spending. It was not merely a limited "time-out;" it increased the base level of spending forever. But that forever net tax increase is not good enough for the left; no spending hike is ever good enough. They want to seize even more of our money by force.

The entire point of Romanoff's proposal is to forcibly redistribute even more wealth. He wants more welfare for health care, more welfare for education, more welfare for practically anybody who claims to need it. (By dedicating new funds for education, legislators can use other funds for whatever they please.) The cost is liberty. The result is that Coloradans who earn that money and who oppose the tax have no say in how their money is spent. That's wrong.

People have the right to spend their income how they see fit, whether it's on their own children's health costs or education, a down payment on a house, a retirement fund, or a charity of their choice.

Romanoff repeats the same misleading claim he used for Referendum C: "SAFE does NOT raise tax rates or touch the constitutional right to vote on taxes." While it's true that it doesn't raise the rates, it certainly raises the net amount of taxes that people pay.

There is one difference this year. While Referendum C passed in rolling economic times, this year people are feeling the pinch of high gas and energy prices (thanks to the stifling controls on energy production imposed by Romanoff's comrades), along with housing problems. However, so long as a large body of people buy into Romanoff's redistributionist ethos, the tax hikers will be back again, and again, and again.

Should Government Own Wilderness?

The following article originally appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press on June 9.

Should the government own, manage wilderness?

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Just how far do we want to push our free-market agenda? The short answer is all the way. A free market means that people's rights to control their resources and associate with others voluntarily, so long as they don't violate the rights of others, are consistently protected. It means that the initiation of force is outlawed. The alternative is coercion: taking people's resources by force and and threatening them with jail for not doing what you want.

Here's how the argument has developed so far. On April 28, we argued that government (including the town of Fruita) should not forcibly take money from people to subsidize recreation facilities.

On May 12 we replied to Keith J. Pritchard's concern about externalities, in this case a benefit (such as keeping kids off the streets) not funded by the beneficiaries. We argued that, by Pritchard's reasoning, government should seize control of the entire economy. "The system of individual rights provides justice as well as the best framework for solving economic problems," we wrote.

But, Pritchard complained, we did not address one of his points. By our logic, Pritchard wrote, "we should auction off all public parks, BLM land, State Parks, and National Forest to the highest bidder!"

A lot of conservatives would reply to such a challenge by invoking pragmatism: "Of course we don't want to auction off public lands, but we need a balanced approach that lets government subsidize only some things, not others, and take by force only some of our money, not all of it." Regular readers know that's not our answer.

Pritchard's complaint is intended to cut off any principled approach. If we want wilderness areas, then what's wrong with Fruita subsidizing a recreation facility? Surely we have to compromise and agree that government must control some industries, even if there's no clear standard to decide what government should control and what should be left to the voluntarist free market.

We refuse to sanction the mixed economy, the current blend of some liberty and some socialist controls. We advocate liberty, all the time, without exception.

Politically, of course, it's usually easier to stop the government takeover of something new (such as a recreation facility) than to restore a government-controlled entity to the free market. Even though there's no reason whatever for the national government to run trains or deliver the mail, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the United States Post Office have resisted market reforms. Trains and mail remain largely socialized industries.

At least government-run businesses should be self-financing. For example, the gasoline tax is a fairly effective fee-for-use that funds government-owned roads. In Denver, though some lines of the RTD receive heavy subsidies, properly the lines should charge enough to cover costs. If people are not willing to pay enough to ride on a line to keep it operational, it should be closed down.

Many government-run wilderness areas require fees. If you head up the road to Vega Reservoir, you'll find that you must purchase a state park's pass. The showers there cost money. The campgrounds and facilities should charge enough to cover all costs, so as not to unfairly compete with the private facilities near the lake. If you go to Rocky Mountain National Park, you'll pay a fee at the gate.

We ask a simple question: why do you think government does a better job managing wilderness areas than individuals and organizations would do on a free market? The pine-beetle infestation is at least partly the result of inept forest management.

Do you think government would do a better job building cars, growing food, erecting houses, and sewing clothes? People tried that in the last century, and it didn't work out so well. Then why do you think government is uniquely qualified to manage wilderness areas?

We do not, as Pritchard claims, think all wilderness areas should be sold to the highest bidder. In some cases, the land should be given or sold to its current users. For example, Powderhorn leases most of its land from the Forest Service, and the company has a vested interest in caring for the land.

It seems that organizations like the Sierra Club complain most loudly about federal wilderness management. Therefore, we suggest simply giving many federal lands to the Sierra Club or similar groups. We're confident they would do a good job managing the land, and they'd be more open to charging fees for use and even drilling to pay for land management. The rest could be transfered to a privatized Forest Service or sold, with the proceeds used to pay down the national debt.

We enjoy wilderness areas as much as the next person. We also enjoy eating. That doesn't mean we want the government to nationalize farms or forests. America is about liberty, and that is the principle to which we should return.

The USA

The other day I was discussing Health Savings Accounts with a friend. I pointed out that my wife and I love our account, which saves us hundreds of dollars every month by allowing us to buy high-deductible insurance and pay out-of-pocket expenses pre-tax . I joked, "Now all we need is a Pet Savings Account for the vet, and we'll be set."

Obviously that's not going to happen, but it occurred to me that a Universal Savings Account could include other important expenses -- food, housing, clothing, etc. Call it the USA. Why should the working poor and middle class pay taxes on their basic needs?

Unfortunately, the country in which we live is no longer compatible with the values of the USA. Instead, the working poor and middle class are hammered with a net Social Security tax of nearly 15 percent, which makes it incredibly hard for many people to get ahead. Even if some are spared most other income taxes, they still pay all sorts of taxes on food, housing, cars, etc.

Ultimately, though, what we need are not new specialized tax breaks, but reductions in government spending, accompanied by general tax cuts.

Lakewood Drops Food Tax

"Starting next year, Lakewood residents will no longer have to pay a sales tax on groceries," Tille Fong reports for the May 12 Rocky Mountain News. City Council voted to repeal the tax. This follows a 2003 citizens' drive to repeal the tax in Littleton.

Fong adds, "The $4 million that the city receives annually from the grocery tax will be offset by the $3 million that will be raised by revoking a 1 percent sales tax waiver granted to Colorado Mills and Wal-Mart."

I've never been a big fan of discriminatory taxes that unfairly advantage new, big businesses. If lower taxes help business, then the sales tax should be reduced for all businesses.

Recently I discussed taxes with a friend, and the conclusion was that it's bad to tax productivity, because taxing it discourages it. It's bad to keep taxing the same thing with the same owner over and over, as happens with property and cars. The result is that you never really own your property; you must in effect pay rent to the government to keep possession. It's bad to tax investment.

Sales tax on consumer goods is least-bad of the options listed, but that creates the problem of taxing the poor for food, housing, medicine, etc. If government exempts certain things, like food, then that applies to expensive steaks and seafood -- hardly essentials. Whether government exempts "necessary" items or "poor" people, that generates a bureaucracy to decide what's exempt and to enforce the rules.

A good rule, though, is that the fewer the types of taxes, the better. The lower those taxes, the better.

Tax-Subsidized Recreation Brings Conflict

The following article originally appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press.

April 28, 2008

Fruita rec center another zero-sum game

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

In our last article, we discussed Barack Obama's confusion about zero-sum games, situations in which one person's gain comes at another's loss. Michelle Obama perfectly summarizes the zero-sum mentality (as reported by Neal Boortz[via Myrhaf):

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

We don't think that people's pies, or their pay checks, belong to national politicians. Or to local politicians, for that matter.

A defining characteristic of a free market is that people are able to make mutually-beneficial transactions. One person's gain is the other person's gain.

A fun place to view the workings of the free market is Down Town Grand Junction during Farmers Market. But even here the invisible hand that Adam Smith talked about can go unnoticed. We do not see the thousands of exchanges of goods and services that came before a single apple could be sold at the Farmers Market. Breeding, planting, irrigation, fertilizer, tractors, haulers -- the list goes on and on -- made possible the apples we buy at market.

The free market system is beautiful to see, so why would anyone want to upset the apple cart?

Farmer John's apple cart competes with other apple carts and also, to an extent, with many other businesses. If we buy apples, we have less money to spend elsewhere. Yet if Farmer John offers quality apples at a good price, he'll make sales.

Now imagine that, one day, Farmer John notices a new apple cart across the street, one run by the government. The latest freeze was less frightening. These apples are subsidized by taxpayers, whether they eat the apples or not. Because the government forces people to subsidize its apples, Farmer John suddenly faces lost sales and, perhaps, bankruptcy.

Moreover, because people lose more money to taxation, they have less to spend with the lemonade stand, the dance teacher, and so on, who in turn have less money to spend for goods and services that they want.

The government's apples are seen, as Henry Hazlitt would say, whereas all the goods that are not produced, and all the services that are not offered, are unseen.

Subsidized apples are an example of a zero-sum game. Some people's gain -- the employees and customers of the government's subsidized apple cart -- imposes a loss on others -- Farmer John and everyone else who loses business.

True, there are winners and losers in a free market, but the difference is that, in a free market, exchanges are voluntary, so the losers are those who fail to satisfy their customers; the system remains one of positive gains. In zero-sum politics, the resources of some are forcibly transfered to others, creating a net loss.

Substitute a recreation center for an apple cart and we arrive in Fruita, notably a town that did not get its name from government-run fruit production.

Recently the people of Fruita voted on a measure to use tax dollars to build a city-owned recreation center. The measure failed on a tie vote.

This issue has divided the community of Fruita, and this is not surprising. Half of the community is willing to use governmental force, ultimately at the point of a gun, on their neighbors to build the center. (If our claim strikes you as overly dramatic, try writing a letter explaining that you choose not to pay your taxes, and see what happens to you.)

Is a recreation center a good idea for Fruita? We don't know. If it is, then it will be profitable on a free market. Those who want the center can raise the capital, build the facility, offer the services, and pay for it all by charging their customers (or collecting voluntary donations). Just like any other business.

But if the recreation center cannot be built without government force, it shouldn't be built at all. The government has no more business offering recreational services than it does selling fruit. The government should not subsidize some people's pet recreational activities at the expense of movie theaters, dance instructors, ski slopes, Boy and Girl Scouts, restaurants, 4H, tour guides, outdoors stores, rafting companies, and so on.

Even a small tax can have large effects when spread out over a city's population. Moreover, a government that can forcibly transfer a little wealth can forcibly transfer a lot of wealth. A few dollars here, a few dollars there, and suddenly the total tax burden approaches half our income. Families that would rather spend their money on an ice cream cone or put it toward the college fund, rather than toward a recreation center, have that right.

Zero-sum politics diminishes neighborly trust because it harms some to benefit others. The alternative is the positive-sum, voluntary free market.

Brook: End Tax Social-Engineering

Tax season is now behind us. But it's not. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute points out in an article for Forbes that, with 66,000 pages of tax code controlling our lives, tax day is every day.

After offering numerous examples of the way that the tax code skews incentives, Brook summarizes:

Tax policy works by attaching financial incentives to a long list of values deemed morally worthy. If you want to maximize your wealth come tax time--and who doesn't?--you must look at the world through tax-colored glasses, "voluntarily" adjusting your behavior to suit social norms and thereby qualifying for tax breaks. In this way, the social engineers of tax policy preserve the impression that you're exercising free choice, while they're actually dispensing with your reason and your judgment.

Brook then briefly describes the proper alternative:

Government's job is not to dictate your values but to protect them. In a free country, you choose values and then use your own money as a tool to achieve them. But a value-rigged tax policy reverses this cause and effect--it uses your money against you, bribing you with tax breaks that let you keep some of your earnings in exchange for abandoning your preferred values.

Brook's entire article is worth perusal. Brook's topic is delimited, so he does not touch upon all of the misincentives of the tax code. A huge problem is that high taxes reduce the incentive to produce. Taxes also reduce the division of labor. Work you do for money is taxed, while work you do for yourself is not taxed. Thus, rather than spend their time working in their field of speciality, many people divert some of their time to doing things they don't especially enjoy and aren't particularly good at, such as fixing the car or painting the house. But these are just two more examples of the way that taxes distort incentives. The combined effects are massive.

Demonic International Airport

The Denver Post hosts a photo and description of the giant new Mustang that now sits on the road to Denver International Airport. "Denver officials commissioned 'Mustang' from [sculptor Luis] Jimenez in 1992," the Post reports.

My first reaction to the sculpture was that it's "repugnant." My wife said, "It looks like it's possessed."

My wife's view seems to be a common one. On a separate blog post, the Post includes a number of comments about the piece that are almost entirely negative. Here are the highlights: "diabolical," "hideous," "a demon horse... melt it down," "truly horrifying," "looked better when it was wrapped in plastic," "waste of tax payer money... beautiful if you are a satan follower," "more appropriate in a horror type theme park," "a debacle," "an embarrasment to Colorado," "likely to give children nightmares."

"Crank This Sucker Up"

Deb Riechmann writes for the AP that President Bush supports "an economic rescue package that would include extra money for food stamps and jobless benefits in addition to tax rebates of hundreds of dollars each for millions of Americans. ... 'Crank this sucker up,' he exclaimed..."

But the only suckers are the ones who believe that Bush's plan will do any long-term good.

There are two obvious problems with Bush's proposal. First, it includes no commitment to offsetting the welfare transfers and tax rebates with reductions in federal spending. Second, it seems to promise more federal spending to cover the additional welfare transfers. In other words, spending will go up even more, while tax revenues will go down. This will be achieved through the magic of deficit spending, which necessarily takes real wealth out of the private economy by reducing investments, and/or more inflation. And, to address the problem of unemployment, Bush will pay people more not to work. That's Bush's strategy for "rescuing" the economy.

The Democrats are unhappy because Bush does not want to bump up federal spending to even higher levels than he already plans: "'We want a balanced package of tax rebates for the middle class and spending stimuli that jump-start the economy quickly. The president has included one; he also needs the other to quickly improve our economy,' said Charles Schumer, D-N.Y."

Because the way to "jump-start the economy" is to forcibly take even more wealth from the people who earn it and turn it over to bureaucrats. "Spending stimuli" in this context is a euphemism for taking other people's money for political payoffs to special interests.

The Denver Post agrees with the basic strategies above but also wants more tax breaks for businesses and, apparently, some sort of federal bailout for people who signed onto mortgages that they cannot now afford. Oh, and force down the interest rate more.

Nowhere in the popular media have I read about the policies that would actually improve the economy over the long term: cut (or at least restrain) federal spending and reduce political economic controls.

Cato's Daniel Mitchell gets the basic problems with Bush's proposal:

The president's proposed stimulus based on “temporary” tax cuts designed to boost “consumer spending” will not work. It is a disappointing re-run of the misguided policies of Jimmy Carter. Rebates are particularly disappointing because they resuscitate the discredited Keynesian notion that an economy benefits when the government borrows money from people in one sector of the economy and distributes it to people in another sector of the economy. Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in national income, not a redistribution of national income.

However, even Mitchell, a supply-sider, talks about tax cuts without mentioning spending cuts:

That is why lower marginal tax rates on work, saving, and investment are the best short-term and long-term strategy for faster growth. But such tax rate reductions should be permanent since temporary tax cuts -- even well-designed tax rate reductions rather than rebates -- do little more than generate economic activity today at the expense of less activity in the future.

Yet the first part of Mitchell's comments explains why tax cuts without spending cuts don't work.

Douglas Bruce Faces the Music...

... Yet, unfortunately, he seems to be tone deaf. As I've reviewed, on his first day on the job as a state representative, he kicked a photographer from the Rocky Mountain News. Bruce has not, so far as I've heard, apologized for the incident. Instead, he has tried to blame the journalist and downplay his behavior.

Now Bruce faces an investigation by the state house:

Joint statement from House on Bruce investigation
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/15/2008 01:37:37 PM MST

Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, and House Republican Leader Mike May, R-Parker, issued the following statement today in response to the formation of a special committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident that occurred between then Rep.-elect Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, and a member of the press on the floor of the House of Representatives on Jan. 14, 2008.

"We are both deeply troubled by the incident that took place yesterday morning. We are committed to preserving order and decorum in the House of Representatives.

"We have asked the committee to collect evidence and to hear testimony and to report back to the House on or before the 25th of January. ..."

Editorials by The Denver Post, the Rocky Mountain News, and The Daily Sentinel, and other papers have condemned Bruce's behavior. Columnists Mike Littwin and Susan Greene have written humorous and biting criticisms of Bruce.

Bruce has become the Democrats' new best friend. What better way to promote the stereotype of Republicans as heartless jerks? If Bruce is the "father" of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, then Democrats will reply that the fruit does not fall far from the tree. That's too bad, because limiting taxes is really about expanding voluntary interaction and reducing the initiation of physical force.

Perhaps that's why one of the harshest condemnations has come from conservative John Andrews:

State Rep. Douglas Bruce jerking around Speaker Andrew Romanoff before joining the House was one thing: a calculated bid for attention, rude but arguably shrewd. His putting the boot, literally, to a Rocky Mountain News photographer is something else again, however: plug-stupid with no conceivable justification.

Someone needs to tell him the ink-by-the-barrel rule of political life and public relations. Bruce's foolhardy footwork, bringing down the wrath of Rocky publisher John Temple along with a near-unanimous rebuke from his own Republican caucus, is an utter loser for the man’s legislative aspirations and, worse, for the GOP conservative cause he claims to support.

Deliver us, please, from such friends. My endorsement of Bruce's candidacy for this House seat, and my congratulations to him upon winning in it, are on extreme probation and rapidly approaching termination.

What a circus!