Critics of collective bargaining by political-sector unions rallied in Denver February 22; here Kathy Welch, State Senator Shawn Mitchell, Jeff Crank, and Patti Reynertson share their thoughts.
See also:
Walker's Discriminatory Taxes
CO Union Supporters Speak Out (video)
Confessions of a Former Koch Fellow
Denver Union Rally: Bob Glass Reports (photos)
"Eat the Rich?" Unions, Tea Parties Stage Opposing Denver Rallies (video)
Monday, February 28, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Walker's Discriminatory Taxes
I have a hard enough time tracking Colorado politics; I spend very little time tracking the politics of other state. However, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has become the subject of national controversy because of his proposal to limit collective bargaining of political-sector unions.
At the pro-union rally in Denver February 22, I heard from a number of people who claimed that Walker's tax cuts are responsible for the budget crisis there. Clearly that's false: Walker's tax cuts amount to something over $100 million, while the state faces a multi-year budget crunch of over three billion.
But this does raise the question of whether the tax cuts were a good idea. I see two problems with them.
First, as Russ Randall effectively argues in a new video, what matters is government spending, not tax rates. To me, putting the cart of tax cuts before the spending horse makes little sense.
If there is spending in the Wisconsin budget that should be cut -- and I do not doubt that there is -- then the straightforward thing to do is advocate those cuts.
I hasten to add that long-term tax restraints, such as Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, serve to restrain year-to-year spending increases, so they address the spending side.
The larger problem with Walker's tax cuts is that they are discriminatory. In general, it's wrong to tax substantially similar parties different tax rates. Taxes should be applied evenly across the board. Indeed, it seems obvious to me that discriminatory taxes violate the "equal protection" guarantees of our Constitution. That said, eliminating discriminatory taxes should not become an excuse to raise net taxes; instead, the discriminatory taxes should be phased out in a revenue-neutral way (or in a way that reduces overall spending), to relieve the burden of other taxpayers. I'd rather see a discriminatory tax remain in place than see it eliminated in favor of increased spending (which is the strategy of Colorado Democrats).
The AP reports that Walker's proposals offer tax cuts for "new" jobs -- which means that existing jobs will be taxed more heavily. It's wrong to political favor "new" jobs over established ones.
The Post Crescent reports that another of Walker's proposals offers tax breaks to companies that relocate to Wisconsin. That punishes existing companies more heavily. If I were an established Wisconsin company, I'd be a little pissed that Walker gave tax advantages to my relocated competitors.
Politicians should not use tax policy to favor some companies and jobs over others. Taxes should be low and evenly applied. Discriminatory taxes should be phased out, not expanded, in a way that benefits the rest of the taxpayers. Walker should have promoted general tax cuts, along with the spending cuts required to balance the budget.
All that said, from what I can tell overall Walker has the interests of taxpayers in mind, which is a lot more than can be said for his many leftist critics, who generally argue as though a citizen's money automatically belongs to the government for politicians to "redistribute" at will.
At the pro-union rally in Denver February 22, I heard from a number of people who claimed that Walker's tax cuts are responsible for the budget crisis there. Clearly that's false: Walker's tax cuts amount to something over $100 million, while the state faces a multi-year budget crunch of over three billion.
But this does raise the question of whether the tax cuts were a good idea. I see two problems with them.
First, as Russ Randall effectively argues in a new video, what matters is government spending, not tax rates. To me, putting the cart of tax cuts before the spending horse makes little sense.
If there is spending in the Wisconsin budget that should be cut -- and I do not doubt that there is -- then the straightforward thing to do is advocate those cuts.
I hasten to add that long-term tax restraints, such as Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, serve to restrain year-to-year spending increases, so they address the spending side.
The larger problem with Walker's tax cuts is that they are discriminatory. In general, it's wrong to tax substantially similar parties different tax rates. Taxes should be applied evenly across the board. Indeed, it seems obvious to me that discriminatory taxes violate the "equal protection" guarantees of our Constitution. That said, eliminating discriminatory taxes should not become an excuse to raise net taxes; instead, the discriminatory taxes should be phased out in a revenue-neutral way (or in a way that reduces overall spending), to relieve the burden of other taxpayers. I'd rather see a discriminatory tax remain in place than see it eliminated in favor of increased spending (which is the strategy of Colorado Democrats).
The AP reports that Walker's proposals offer tax cuts for "new" jobs -- which means that existing jobs will be taxed more heavily. It's wrong to political favor "new" jobs over established ones.
The Post Crescent reports that another of Walker's proposals offers tax breaks to companies that relocate to Wisconsin. That punishes existing companies more heavily. If I were an established Wisconsin company, I'd be a little pissed that Walker gave tax advantages to my relocated competitors.
Politicians should not use tax policy to favor some companies and jobs over others. Taxes should be low and evenly applied. Discriminatory taxes should be phased out, not expanded, in a way that benefits the rest of the taxpayers. Walker should have promoted general tax cuts, along with the spending cuts required to balance the budget.
All that said, from what I can tell overall Walker has the interests of taxpayers in mind, which is a lot more than can be said for his many leftist critics, who generally argue as though a citizen's money automatically belongs to the government for politicians to "redistribute" at will.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Freaky Unintended Consequences
I'm a fan of the Freakonomics books, though I don't always agree with them. (I've written about them a couple times before.) The documentary of the same name includes some material not found in the books.
I enjoyed this line: "You can teach a kid just as much at a grocery store as you can at a museum, maybe more."
But perhaps the most poignant new story from the film is of Steven Levitt's experiences potty-training his daughter. As he relates the story, his wife for months had trouble getting their daughter to use the toilet. So he figured that, as an economist, surely he could come up with an incentive structure to encourage potty training.
So Levitt decided to offer his daughter a bag of M&Ms if she'd use the potty. Immediately she did so. And for a couple of days, she consistently used the potty in exchange for M&Ms.
But on about the third day, Levitt's daughter said she had to use the potty, and she went a very small amount in exchange for the M&Ms. She immediately said she needed to go again, so she went a small amount for another bag of M&Ms. Levitt points out that his incentive structure had encouraged his daughter, in three short days, to develop excellent bladder control. What it had not done is accomplish his purpose of getting her to use the potty normally.
The moral of the story? If a genius-level economist can screw up the incentives to potty train his daughter, why do so many people think that politicians and unelected bureaucrats can centrally control vast swaths of our economy?
I enjoyed this line: "You can teach a kid just as much at a grocery store as you can at a museum, maybe more."
But perhaps the most poignant new story from the film is of Steven Levitt's experiences potty-training his daughter. As he relates the story, his wife for months had trouble getting their daughter to use the toilet. So he figured that, as an economist, surely he could come up with an incentive structure to encourage potty training.
So Levitt decided to offer his daughter a bag of M&Ms if she'd use the potty. Immediately she did so. And for a couple of days, she consistently used the potty in exchange for M&Ms.
But on about the third day, Levitt's daughter said she had to use the potty, and she went a very small amount in exchange for the M&Ms. She immediately said she needed to go again, so she went a small amount for another bag of M&Ms. Levitt points out that his incentive structure had encouraged his daughter, in three short days, to develop excellent bladder control. What it had not done is accomplish his purpose of getting her to use the potty normally.
The moral of the story? If a genius-level economist can screw up the incentives to potty train his daughter, why do so many people think that politicians and unelected bureaucrats can centrally control vast swaths of our economy?
CO Union Supporters Speak Out
Even though I think unions often get their way illegitimately through political force, I wanted to give the union supporters who rallied in Denver February 22 an opportunity to share their views.
As noted, not all of the union supporters were particularly eloquent in their presentations (see also reports by Bob Glass and Kelly Maher). However, I interviewed a number of union supporters who were articulate and well-informed.
I would note that nobody else has done more to record and publish the views of union supporters at the Denver rally. Advocacy journalists are still journalists, and they can give a fair hearing to people with whom they largely disagree. (Moreover, often journalists who claim to be straight news reporters egregiously bias their stories and misrepresent the views of those they dislike.) The first video offers several interviews:
I added several editorial notes to the first video. Here they are:
The Independence Institute claims Colorado ranks between 29th and 36th in the nation in per-pupil spending, depending on assumptions, based on figures from the NEA, Census Bureau, and US Dept. of Education. Source.
Cap Times claims Gov. Walker's tax cuts cost $140 million. The Weekly Standard claims Wisconsin faces a projected deficit of $3.6 billion. Sources: One and Two
Rick Ungar writes for Forbes that a Wisconsin bill indeed included language about potentially selling or leasing utilities, though Koch Industries denied any interest in purchasing them. Source.
The Denver Post reports that Xcel claims its "authorized" return "has averaged 10.63 percent, but the company's actual average return has been about 8.6 percent." However, nothing about this shows that subsidies for solar energy creates net jobs when the costs are considered.
Source.
The next video features a conversation with teacher and union organizer Cathy Royce of Canyon City:
The final video of union supporters features several more interviews:
As noted, not all of the union supporters were particularly eloquent in their presentations (see also reports by Bob Glass and Kelly Maher). However, I interviewed a number of union supporters who were articulate and well-informed.
I would note that nobody else has done more to record and publish the views of union supporters at the Denver rally. Advocacy journalists are still journalists, and they can give a fair hearing to people with whom they largely disagree. (Moreover, often journalists who claim to be straight news reporters egregiously bias their stories and misrepresent the views of those they dislike.) The first video offers several interviews:
I added several editorial notes to the first video. Here they are:
The Independence Institute claims Colorado ranks between 29th and 36th in the nation in per-pupil spending, depending on assumptions, based on figures from the NEA, Census Bureau, and US Dept. of Education. Source.
Cap Times claims Gov. Walker's tax cuts cost $140 million. The Weekly Standard claims Wisconsin faces a projected deficit of $3.6 billion. Sources: One and Two
Rick Ungar writes for Forbes that a Wisconsin bill indeed included language about potentially selling or leasing utilities, though Koch Industries denied any interest in purchasing them. Source.
The Denver Post reports that Xcel claims its "authorized" return "has averaged 10.63 percent, but the company's actual average return has been about 8.6 percent." However, nothing about this shows that subsidies for solar energy creates net jobs when the costs are considered.
Source.
The next video features a conversation with teacher and union organizer Cathy Royce of Canyon City:
The final video of union supporters features several more interviews:
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Confessions of a Former Koch Fellow
Union supporters protested the Koch Industries offices today, as David Weigel noted on Twitter. A couple of days ago numerous union supporters in Denver sported signage demonizing the Kochs. So what's this all about?
Charles Koch helped build Koch Industries into a hugely successful company. Koch also funds various liberty-oriented groups. Back in the summer of 1995 I worked as a Koch Fellow in Washington, DC. (The program was incorporated into the Institute for Humane Studies not long after that, if memory serves.)
When I became a Koch Fellow, I knew practically nothing about Charles Koch. I've never met him (though I'd very much like to). I knew he was a successful businessman. Later I learned that "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard called him the "Kochtopus," though I never found that dispute very interesting.
I was already a hard-core free market advocate by the time I became a Koch Fellow; that's why a became a Koch Fellow. Contrary to the left's anti-intellectualism, typically the money follows the ideas. It does not determine them. (I've also worked for the left-leaning and excellent Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition back when we reformed Colorado's asset forfeiture laws; I'm even featured in The Progress Report.)
So what did I do that summer when I earned my living from Koch money? For one thing, all of us fellows split into research topics; mine was Social Security. I learned quite a lot about the background of the program. But there was no demand that our findings match any predetermined course. Indeed, I disagreed with everybody else in my group, and I continue to disagree with the proposals put out by such groups as the Cato Institute, another beneficiary of Koch's money.
But mostly that summer I worked as an intern for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a group dedicated to criminal sentencing reform. (The Koch program farmed out fellows to think-tanks around D.C.) My big project there was researching the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. I even wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times on the subject. Here's what the summary says: "Ari Armstrong, a research associate with Families Against Mandatory Minimums, discusses efforts to get criminal sentencing for crack cocaine brought down to the same level as powder cocaine due to the disparity between blacks and whites sent to prison."
So, as you can see, Charles Koch is a very evil man. How dare he fund my efforts to achieve criminal justice equity for African Americans!
Over at Reason, Nick Gillespie points out a number of other reasons why the left should absolutely detest Charles Koch: "Why the Evil Koch Bros. Must be Stopped: They Support Drug Legalization, Gay Marriage, Reduced Defense Spending."
Vicious, detestable man, that Charles Koch.
And, my dear Mr. Koch, if you happen to read this, please accept my sincere gratitude for all the amazing work you've done not only to improve our quality of life through your business activities, but to expand liberty for each individual. You are a hero of our age, and I am honored to have had some association with you within my life, however distant.
Charles Koch helped build Koch Industries into a hugely successful company. Koch also funds various liberty-oriented groups. Back in the summer of 1995 I worked as a Koch Fellow in Washington, DC. (The program was incorporated into the Institute for Humane Studies not long after that, if memory serves.)
When I became a Koch Fellow, I knew practically nothing about Charles Koch. I've never met him (though I'd very much like to). I knew he was a successful businessman. Later I learned that "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard called him the "Kochtopus," though I never found that dispute very interesting.
I was already a hard-core free market advocate by the time I became a Koch Fellow; that's why a became a Koch Fellow. Contrary to the left's anti-intellectualism, typically the money follows the ideas. It does not determine them. (I've also worked for the left-leaning and excellent Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition back when we reformed Colorado's asset forfeiture laws; I'm even featured in The Progress Report.)
So what did I do that summer when I earned my living from Koch money? For one thing, all of us fellows split into research topics; mine was Social Security. I learned quite a lot about the background of the program. But there was no demand that our findings match any predetermined course. Indeed, I disagreed with everybody else in my group, and I continue to disagree with the proposals put out by such groups as the Cato Institute, another beneficiary of Koch's money.
But mostly that summer I worked as an intern for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a group dedicated to criminal sentencing reform. (The Koch program farmed out fellows to think-tanks around D.C.) My big project there was researching the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. I even wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times on the subject. Here's what the summary says: "Ari Armstrong, a research associate with Families Against Mandatory Minimums, discusses efforts to get criminal sentencing for crack cocaine brought down to the same level as powder cocaine due to the disparity between blacks and whites sent to prison."
So, as you can see, Charles Koch is a very evil man. How dare he fund my efforts to achieve criminal justice equity for African Americans!
Over at Reason, Nick Gillespie points out a number of other reasons why the left should absolutely detest Charles Koch: "Why the Evil Koch Bros. Must be Stopped: They Support Drug Legalization, Gay Marriage, Reduced Defense Spending."
Vicious, detestable man, that Charles Koch.
And, my dear Mr. Koch, if you happen to read this, please accept my sincere gratitude for all the amazing work you've done not only to improve our quality of life through your business activities, but to expand liberty for each individual. You are a hero of our age, and I am honored to have had some association with you within my life, however distant.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Denver Union Rally: Bob Glass Reports
Activist Bob Glass took scores of photos of the opposing union rallies in Denver February 22; some of them are reproduce here with his permission.
Glass also described his experience just before the rallies: "I parked my car a few blocks away from the capitol and began walking towards the gold-domed building. A man and a woman with teachers' union placards were behind me discussing media manipulation strategy.
"We all came together at a red light and I asked them if in fact they were teachers. They both proudly said 'yes' and proceeded to boast about how dedicated they were to the children. I pointed out that they couldn't be that dedicated if they were not in the classroom teaching the children but were out here denouncing the governor of Wisconsin and supporting collective bargaining rights for state employees.
"The man emphatically told me that he 'had permission' to be here. He didn't say permission from whom -- certainly not from the children he professes to be so dedicated to. The woman then quickly chimed in and explained that she was in fact working for the union and not actually involved in education. 'So then you're not a teacher,' I replied. 'Not right now,' she said."
Glass commented on the "vitriol they [some union supporters] showed to the Tea Party counter-demonstrators. They had the attitude that it was inconceivable that anyone could disagree with them and many of them for the first time in their lives had to look into the faces of people unafraid to oppose them.
"Amid their litany of 'Tax the Rich' and 'The people united will never be defeated,' they shouted their usual obscenities and flipped the bird. One hysterical woman even mooned the Tea Party. They accused the Tea Party people of being paid by Wall Street and told us to get back in our Escalades and go home. Suddenly my 1992 Subaru Loyale with 235,000 miles seemed woefully inadequate.
"They sent people into the ranks of the Tea Partiers shouting directly in people's faces clearly trying to provoke a violent confrontation. As usual the Tea Party people showed incredible restraint and as the cops caught on to what was going on they became more vigilant about keeping the two groups separated."
See also coverage from Who Said You Said and Lesley Hollywood, as well as additional coverage from Free Colorado.
Lesley Hollywood:
Yours Truly conducting an interview:
Shawn Mitchell:
Glass also described his experience just before the rallies: "I parked my car a few blocks away from the capitol and began walking towards the gold-domed building. A man and a woman with teachers' union placards were behind me discussing media manipulation strategy.
"We all came together at a red light and I asked them if in fact they were teachers. They both proudly said 'yes' and proceeded to boast about how dedicated they were to the children. I pointed out that they couldn't be that dedicated if they were not in the classroom teaching the children but were out here denouncing the governor of Wisconsin and supporting collective bargaining rights for state employees.
"The man emphatically told me that he 'had permission' to be here. He didn't say permission from whom -- certainly not from the children he professes to be so dedicated to. The woman then quickly chimed in and explained that she was in fact working for the union and not actually involved in education. 'So then you're not a teacher,' I replied. 'Not right now,' she said."
Glass commented on the "vitriol they [some union supporters] showed to the Tea Party counter-demonstrators. They had the attitude that it was inconceivable that anyone could disagree with them and many of them for the first time in their lives had to look into the faces of people unafraid to oppose them.
"Amid their litany of 'Tax the Rich' and 'The people united will never be defeated,' they shouted their usual obscenities and flipped the bird. One hysterical woman even mooned the Tea Party. They accused the Tea Party people of being paid by Wall Street and told us to get back in our Escalades and go home. Suddenly my 1992 Subaru Loyale with 235,000 miles seemed woefully inadequate.
"They sent people into the ranks of the Tea Partiers shouting directly in people's faces clearly trying to provoke a violent confrontation. As usual the Tea Party people showed incredible restraint and as the cops caught on to what was going on they became more vigilant about keeping the two groups separated."
See also coverage from Who Said You Said and Lesley Hollywood, as well as additional coverage from Free Colorado.
Lesley Hollywood:
Yours Truly conducting an interview:
Shawn Mitchell:
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
"Eat the Rich?" Unions, Tea Parties Stage Opposing Denver Rallies
Union supporters rallied in Denver February 22 to support unions under political pressure in Wisconsin; Tea Party groups counter-protested at the bottom of the capitol steps. I conducted a number of interviews from both sides.
One dominant theme from the union side was that taxes should be higher, especially on the rich:
In the next video, union supporters call their opponents fascists and "tea baggers," all in the spirit of the "new civility," of course:
Next, union supporters chant "USA!" -- to a backdrop of the Soviet hammer and sickle and the Mexican flag:
The next video offers a sense of the competing signs and chants.
I also captured some substantive interviews with both sides that I will release in independent posts over the coming days, so check back.
One dominant theme from the union side was that taxes should be higher, especially on the rich:
In the next video, union supporters call their opponents fascists and "tea baggers," all in the spirit of the "new civility," of course:
Next, union supporters chant "USA!" -- to a backdrop of the Soviet hammer and sickle and the Mexican flag:
The next video offers a sense of the competing signs and chants.
I also captured some substantive interviews with both sides that I will release in independent posts over the coming days, so check back.
Monday, February 21, 2011
What Freedom Is and What It Is Not
To many, the term "freedom" remains a vague platitude. Others distort the term "freedom" to encompass violent and coercive acts. What does real freedom, the sort of freedom worth wanting, look like, and what is its justification? I delivered this talk February 19 at Liberty Toastmasters.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Grand Junction Could Use Some Common Sense Economics
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published February 18 by Grand Junction Free Press.
"The first law of economics is scarcity, and the first law of politics is to disregard the first law of economics." So opines Thomas Sowell, as quoted in the recently revised book, Common Sense Economics. It is a book Grand Junction officials would do well to read.
Yes, government should protect individual rights by operating police departments and courts. But the city of Grand Junction does far more than keep the peace and protect property rights. It runs a variety of businesses that should be left to the private sector.
At the city's web page (GJCity.org), the department with the most subcategories listed is Parks and Recreation. This includes aquatics; the city "provides year-around programming at two aquatic facilities." It includes the Avalon Theatre, Convention Center, and "Cultural Arts," which offers tax dollars to politically favored art. It includes golf as well as "Recreation," a department "dedicated to providing high quality, affordable leisure experiences."
The city also provides ambulance service. This might change; a January 18 media release from the city notes that, after a bidding process, "City Council will decide whether to continue providing the service through the [fire department] or switch to a private provider."
We have nothing against golf or those other activities. But just because some service is a Good Thing doesn't mean government should help provide it. Groceries and shoes are good things, but we don't want the city running the stores that sell them. We like peaches, wine, beer, and movies, but we don't want the city taking over all the peach orchards, vineyards, breweries, and cinemas.
The first problem with city-run businesses is that some of them are subsidized. So taxpayers who do not use those services, however poor, are forced to subsidize those who do use them, however wealthy. (We don't think politicians should forcibly transfer wealth from rich to poor, either.)
Traci Wieland, the city's Recreation Superintendent, said of the city's services, "Some are self-funding, and some are not;" the question of subsidies "ranges from program to program." She added, "Any shortfall that we have would obviously come from the general fund of Grand Junction."
We're all for charitable contributions to make certain services more widely available. Indeed, Wieland noted that various local businesses already donate funds for some projects. We just don't think the city should subsidize them with forcibly confiscated tax dollars.
Perhaps the brilliant French economist Frederic Bastiat best addressed the matter: "When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves."
The city's golf courses are self-funding. Parks and Recreation Director Rob Schoeber said, "All of the salaries pertaining to the golf courses are covered by the golf fees. The courses operate as enterprise accounts. Their budget is separate from the city general fund, and they cover their own capital and operating expenses annually."
At least the golf courses cover their basic costs. But Schoeber notes that, while "items sold in the golf pro shops are subject to sales tax," the "golf course land is not subject to property taxes." That's a huge competitive advantage over free-market recreational businesses. Government should treat every business equally, not favor some businesses over others with discriminatory taxes.
Even if, hypothetically, a city business paid for itself and paid the same taxes as everyone else, still the city should auction off the business and use the proceeds to reduce people's tax burden.
The core principle is that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. When city government instead does things like run golf courses, it muddles its mission and opens the door to all sorts of illegitimate activities.
Moreover, even a self-funding city business is not fully subject to the market forces of profits and loss. Only ownership of the resources, which city officials never experience, can fully provide the incentive to devote those resources to their best use. Maybe the golf courses should be run differently, or maybe they should be converted to some other use entirely. Such decisions are rightly made by people interacting voluntarily on a free market.
Perhaps city councilors should contemplate how they'd feel if the city went into direct competition with their businesses. Members of the council work in the fields of accounting, investing, realty, banking, and security. Should the city open real estate offices, banks, and alarm installation centers? Should the city convert part of the Avalon Theatre to an accounting office that gets special tax breaks?
The city cannot provide services without reducing services offered by others. Resources are scarce. Trying to defy this basic law of economics is like trying to defy the law of gravity. City government should focus on protecting people's rights, and leave recreation to the free market.
"The first law of economics is scarcity, and the first law of politics is to disregard the first law of economics." So opines Thomas Sowell, as quoted in the recently revised book, Common Sense Economics. It is a book Grand Junction officials would do well to read.
Yes, government should protect individual rights by operating police departments and courts. But the city of Grand Junction does far more than keep the peace and protect property rights. It runs a variety of businesses that should be left to the private sector.
At the city's web page (GJCity.org), the department with the most subcategories listed is Parks and Recreation. This includes aquatics; the city "provides year-around programming at two aquatic facilities." It includes the Avalon Theatre, Convention Center, and "Cultural Arts," which offers tax dollars to politically favored art. It includes golf as well as "Recreation," a department "dedicated to providing high quality, affordable leisure experiences."
The city also provides ambulance service. This might change; a January 18 media release from the city notes that, after a bidding process, "City Council will decide whether to continue providing the service through the [fire department] or switch to a private provider."
We have nothing against golf or those other activities. But just because some service is a Good Thing doesn't mean government should help provide it. Groceries and shoes are good things, but we don't want the city running the stores that sell them. We like peaches, wine, beer, and movies, but we don't want the city taking over all the peach orchards, vineyards, breweries, and cinemas.
The first problem with city-run businesses is that some of them are subsidized. So taxpayers who do not use those services, however poor, are forced to subsidize those who do use them, however wealthy. (We don't think politicians should forcibly transfer wealth from rich to poor, either.)
Traci Wieland, the city's Recreation Superintendent, said of the city's services, "Some are self-funding, and some are not;" the question of subsidies "ranges from program to program." She added, "Any shortfall that we have would obviously come from the general fund of Grand Junction."
We're all for charitable contributions to make certain services more widely available. Indeed, Wieland noted that various local businesses already donate funds for some projects. We just don't think the city should subsidize them with forcibly confiscated tax dollars.
Perhaps the brilliant French economist Frederic Bastiat best addressed the matter: "When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves."
The city's golf courses are self-funding. Parks and Recreation Director Rob Schoeber said, "All of the salaries pertaining to the golf courses are covered by the golf fees. The courses operate as enterprise accounts. Their budget is separate from the city general fund, and they cover their own capital and operating expenses annually."
At least the golf courses cover their basic costs. But Schoeber notes that, while "items sold in the golf pro shops are subject to sales tax," the "golf course land is not subject to property taxes." That's a huge competitive advantage over free-market recreational businesses. Government should treat every business equally, not favor some businesses over others with discriminatory taxes.
Even if, hypothetically, a city business paid for itself and paid the same taxes as everyone else, still the city should auction off the business and use the proceeds to reduce people's tax burden.
The core principle is that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. When city government instead does things like run golf courses, it muddles its mission and opens the door to all sorts of illegitimate activities.
Moreover, even a self-funding city business is not fully subject to the market forces of profits and loss. Only ownership of the resources, which city officials never experience, can fully provide the incentive to devote those resources to their best use. Maybe the golf courses should be run differently, or maybe they should be converted to some other use entirely. Such decisions are rightly made by people interacting voluntarily on a free market.
Perhaps city councilors should contemplate how they'd feel if the city went into direct competition with their businesses. Members of the council work in the fields of accounting, investing, realty, banking, and security. Should the city open real estate offices, banks, and alarm installation centers? Should the city convert part of the Avalon Theatre to an accounting office that gets special tax breaks?
The city cannot provide services without reducing services offered by others. Resources are scarce. Trying to defy this basic law of economics is like trying to defy the law of gravity. City government should focus on protecting people's rights, and leave recreation to the free market.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Project Reason Videos Released
Project Reason has announced the finalists for its video contest.
In my view, the best of the bunch is "Think," an elegant silent cartoon about succeeding through reason:
My second-favorite video is "The Tutor," about a woman who tells children some lesser-known Bible stories:
I also enjoyed "New Age Medic," which pokes fun at some of the sillier forms of "treatments" on the market:
While I too submitted a video to the contest, I had no illusions I would become a finalist. (Because of delayed permissions, I didn't actually start the video until the day it was due.) My cinematography leaves much to be desired, and several people have been quick to point out that my handwriting is atrocious. However, the content is interesting.
What inspired me to make the video is that, though Ayn Rand preceded Sam Harris in attacking moral skepticism and relativism by half a century, Harris's book contains not a single reference to Rand, not even in a footnote, judging from Amazon's "Search Inside This Book" feature. And Harris's moral theory suffers myriad weaknesses that Rand corrects. (Project Reason "was founded by Sam Harris and Annaka Harris.") So I submitted a video not to try to win the contest, but simply to point out to Harris and others that, if they regard well-being as central to morality and see moral relativism as dangerous, they ought to take a look at what Rand had to say on those matters.
In my view, the best of the bunch is "Think," an elegant silent cartoon about succeeding through reason:
My second-favorite video is "The Tutor," about a woman who tells children some lesser-known Bible stories:
I also enjoyed "New Age Medic," which pokes fun at some of the sillier forms of "treatments" on the market:
While I too submitted a video to the contest, I had no illusions I would become a finalist. (Because of delayed permissions, I didn't actually start the video until the day it was due.) My cinematography leaves much to be desired, and several people have been quick to point out that my handwriting is atrocious. However, the content is interesting.
What inspired me to make the video is that, though Ayn Rand preceded Sam Harris in attacking moral skepticism and relativism by half a century, Harris's book contains not a single reference to Rand, not even in a footnote, judging from Amazon's "Search Inside This Book" feature. And Harris's moral theory suffers myriad weaknesses that Rand corrects. (Project Reason "was founded by Sam Harris and Annaka Harris.") So I submitted a video not to try to win the contest, but simply to point out to Harris and others that, if they regard well-being as central to morality and see moral relativism as dangerous, they ought to take a look at what Rand had to say on those matters.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Time to Reform Jury Duty?
Surprisingly, some people actually appear not to want to serve on a jury. I would like to serve, but I can't manage to get seated on a jury. I've been called for jury duty twice. The first time I was dismissed before I even saw the inside of a courtroom. Today I traveled to Jefferson County's "Taj Mahal," where twenty-five of us got released by the judge because, in his words, "We're not actually having a jury trial today" in the case for which I was called.
My experiences illustrate why jury duty in Colorado should be reformed. After I review some modest reforms, I'll consider some broader possible changes.
I awoke at the 6:30 in the morning and left my house a few minutes after seven. After missing the Colfax exit off I-70, I circled around and made it into the building at quarter till eight. Check-in was uneventful, though I thought it quite ridiculous that I had to hand over my wallet at security. After we potential jurors waiting around in uncomfortable seats (the problem was low, flexible backs), a judge and then a staffer explained the general process, then showed a video with Ed Sardella further explaining jury duty. The staffer mentioned that, of the several cases scheduled for the day, it was possible that some or all of them could reach a plea agreement.
By 9:50, we were still sitting around. (I read from Sam Harris's latest book on my iTouch.) Finally at 10:22 a different staffer called my name along with 24 others and asked us to move into the hall. Somebody expressed surprise that it took 25 of us to fill a six-person jury. Judge Bradley Burback was pleasant enough, and he expressed regret that the prosecutor had not yet arrived. Finally a young fellow (I assume from the prosecutor's office) entered the court room and asked to speak with the judge, who soon assumed an expression that seemed to indicate, "You've got to be kidding me." After telling us there wasn't going to be any jury trial in this case, he released us at 10:35. So figure the entire event took around four hours of my day, plus gas and vehicle wear.
That's a price I would gladly bear -- if it actually made any difference. The problem is that my time was completely wasted, as was the time of most of those called for jury duty today.
My suggestions for modest reforms are as follows:
First, reach plea agreements the day before trial, and reduce the number of jurors called in accordingly.
Second, call us in no earlier than needed. I see no point of sitting around for two hours. Why not set the check-in time to 9:30 or ten? And make the video available online.
Third, only call in the number of jurors actually needed. (I realize that to some extent this is a guessing game, but the policy now seems to be to call in as many potential jurors as even conceivably needed, then add a large cushion. I'd be interested to know what fraction of those called in actually end up sitting on a jury.)
Fourth, limit the number of dismissals to a reasonable number. I recognize that we don't want people on a jury who personally know a party in the case, nor do we want KKK members or the like. But those sorts of dismissals constitute a tiny portion of the jury pool. The fact that lawyers can pick and choose the most manipulable jurors from a large pool has led journalist Vin Suprynowicz to define "voir dire" as jury stacking. You simply don't need 25 people to fill a six-member jury.
Now for my more far-reaching reforms. The first has to do with compensation. If you work for somebody else, Colorado law forces the employer to pay their employee $50 per day for up to three days. (See Statute 13-71-126. Actually, nobody at the court house bothered to mention the detail about the $50 limit.) If you work for yourself, a staffer informed us, the court will provide compensation only in extreme circumstances, as arbitrarily decided by a judge. That's totally unfair. If jury duty is a responsibility of each individual citizen, then why should employers have to pick up the costs? One of the staffers actually made a point to say that, if potential jurors were released early, the court would not contact their employers, so jurors were welcome to take the rest of the day off. I don't think it's the court's businesses to interfere with employment contracts, perhaps except to mandate unpenalized time off for jury duty. (I don't even think that's needed, because any employer who hassled an employee about jury duty would get picketed, and I'd participate.)
It does make sense to me, however, to compensate people for hardship, such as for otherwise-unnecessary child care or mileage for the unemployed. Jury duty shouldn't put a person in financial hardship.
But I don't think the state has any business compensating jurors for their time or forcing employers to do so. If it's a fundamental responsibility of citizenship, then the individual juror should bear those costs. I would be open to arguments for compensation, say, if a trial extends beyond a week or so, given that a tiny fraction of trials can grow exceedingly long. Right now, under 13-71-129, the state compensates jurors (a measly) $50 per day for every day of service after the third day.
I save my most far-reaching and tentative reform for last. Giving the state the power to force people to perform any duty makes me extremely nervous. Does involuntary servitude become morally permissible if restricted to jury duty for a day or a trial? (I notice that Congressman Mike Coffman is trying to end the military draft, an admirable aim.)
Here's what the statutes say about enforcement: "13-71-123. Enforcement of juror duties. The court shall take whatever action may be appropriate to enforce the provisions of this article. Upon a finding that a juror will not appear to perform or complete juror service or in response to the court's order, the court may take such action as is likely to compel the juror to appear."
The key word there is "compel." Obviously the statute is quite broad.
Yet juries constitute a key protection of our basic liberties. The Bill of Rights guarantees "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." True, sometimes juries can be capricious, biased, and emotional. But, on the whole, I'd far rather trust my liberties to a jury of my peers rather than to an appointed representative of the state. Locking somebody in a cage constitutes an extreme restriction of that person's basic freedom of action, and that should be done only after a person is legally convicted by a jury.
So what is the proper way to balance these two apparently competing values? I tentatively propose that people be allowed to ditch jury duty, in writing, and thereby surrender all rights to trial by jury in the future. Under this policy, everyone retains the right to trial by jury, but that right entails participation in the jury system. If you can't be bothered to serve on a jury, fine: but don't expect the rest of us to sit on your jury should you stand accused. Of course, for this to work, a person would have to be offered a legitimate opportunity to serve on a jury and then officially decline the summons, having been notified of the consequences.
But this proposal makes me nervous. It could be abused; if standards slipped a jury summons lost in the mail might be construed as nonperformance. Moreover, somebody could claim not to have understood the consequences.
Another possibility is to allow people to buy their way out of jury duty, say with a $100 fine. But this would skew the jury pool to lower-income participants, which disrupts the ideal of a random cross-section of the defendant's community.
I do not expect the mandated jury service to be altered anytime soon, nor is the matter pressing given all the other obvious and severe violations of our rights. It is an interesting issue in that it involves an unusual tension between liberties and mandates. Even absent reform, I can't imagine why anyone would try to avoid jury service. My only irritation is that I have not actually been able to serve on a jury.
My experiences illustrate why jury duty in Colorado should be reformed. After I review some modest reforms, I'll consider some broader possible changes.
I awoke at the 6:30 in the morning and left my house a few minutes after seven. After missing the Colfax exit off I-70, I circled around and made it into the building at quarter till eight. Check-in was uneventful, though I thought it quite ridiculous that I had to hand over my wallet at security. After we potential jurors waiting around in uncomfortable seats (the problem was low, flexible backs), a judge and then a staffer explained the general process, then showed a video with Ed Sardella further explaining jury duty. The staffer mentioned that, of the several cases scheduled for the day, it was possible that some or all of them could reach a plea agreement.
By 9:50, we were still sitting around. (I read from Sam Harris's latest book on my iTouch.) Finally at 10:22 a different staffer called my name along with 24 others and asked us to move into the hall. Somebody expressed surprise that it took 25 of us to fill a six-person jury. Judge Bradley Burback was pleasant enough, and he expressed regret that the prosecutor had not yet arrived. Finally a young fellow (I assume from the prosecutor's office) entered the court room and asked to speak with the judge, who soon assumed an expression that seemed to indicate, "You've got to be kidding me." After telling us there wasn't going to be any jury trial in this case, he released us at 10:35. So figure the entire event took around four hours of my day, plus gas and vehicle wear.
That's a price I would gladly bear -- if it actually made any difference. The problem is that my time was completely wasted, as was the time of most of those called for jury duty today.
My suggestions for modest reforms are as follows:
First, reach plea agreements the day before trial, and reduce the number of jurors called in accordingly.
Second, call us in no earlier than needed. I see no point of sitting around for two hours. Why not set the check-in time to 9:30 or ten? And make the video available online.
Third, only call in the number of jurors actually needed. (I realize that to some extent this is a guessing game, but the policy now seems to be to call in as many potential jurors as even conceivably needed, then add a large cushion. I'd be interested to know what fraction of those called in actually end up sitting on a jury.)
Fourth, limit the number of dismissals to a reasonable number. I recognize that we don't want people on a jury who personally know a party in the case, nor do we want KKK members or the like. But those sorts of dismissals constitute a tiny portion of the jury pool. The fact that lawyers can pick and choose the most manipulable jurors from a large pool has led journalist Vin Suprynowicz to define "voir dire" as jury stacking. You simply don't need 25 people to fill a six-member jury.
Now for my more far-reaching reforms. The first has to do with compensation. If you work for somebody else, Colorado law forces the employer to pay their employee $50 per day for up to three days. (See Statute 13-71-126. Actually, nobody at the court house bothered to mention the detail about the $50 limit.) If you work for yourself, a staffer informed us, the court will provide compensation only in extreme circumstances, as arbitrarily decided by a judge. That's totally unfair. If jury duty is a responsibility of each individual citizen, then why should employers have to pick up the costs? One of the staffers actually made a point to say that, if potential jurors were released early, the court would not contact their employers, so jurors were welcome to take the rest of the day off. I don't think it's the court's businesses to interfere with employment contracts, perhaps except to mandate unpenalized time off for jury duty. (I don't even think that's needed, because any employer who hassled an employee about jury duty would get picketed, and I'd participate.)
It does make sense to me, however, to compensate people for hardship, such as for otherwise-unnecessary child care or mileage for the unemployed. Jury duty shouldn't put a person in financial hardship.
But I don't think the state has any business compensating jurors for their time or forcing employers to do so. If it's a fundamental responsibility of citizenship, then the individual juror should bear those costs. I would be open to arguments for compensation, say, if a trial extends beyond a week or so, given that a tiny fraction of trials can grow exceedingly long. Right now, under 13-71-129, the state compensates jurors (a measly) $50 per day for every day of service after the third day.
I save my most far-reaching and tentative reform for last. Giving the state the power to force people to perform any duty makes me extremely nervous. Does involuntary servitude become morally permissible if restricted to jury duty for a day or a trial? (I notice that Congressman Mike Coffman is trying to end the military draft, an admirable aim.)
Here's what the statutes say about enforcement: "13-71-123. Enforcement of juror duties. The court shall take whatever action may be appropriate to enforce the provisions of this article. Upon a finding that a juror will not appear to perform or complete juror service or in response to the court's order, the court may take such action as is likely to compel the juror to appear."
The key word there is "compel." Obviously the statute is quite broad.
Yet juries constitute a key protection of our basic liberties. The Bill of Rights guarantees "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." True, sometimes juries can be capricious, biased, and emotional. But, on the whole, I'd far rather trust my liberties to a jury of my peers rather than to an appointed representative of the state. Locking somebody in a cage constitutes an extreme restriction of that person's basic freedom of action, and that should be done only after a person is legally convicted by a jury.
So what is the proper way to balance these two apparently competing values? I tentatively propose that people be allowed to ditch jury duty, in writing, and thereby surrender all rights to trial by jury in the future. Under this policy, everyone retains the right to trial by jury, but that right entails participation in the jury system. If you can't be bothered to serve on a jury, fine: but don't expect the rest of us to sit on your jury should you stand accused. Of course, for this to work, a person would have to be offered a legitimate opportunity to serve on a jury and then officially decline the summons, having been notified of the consequences.
But this proposal makes me nervous. It could be abused; if standards slipped a jury summons lost in the mail might be construed as nonperformance. Moreover, somebody could claim not to have understood the consequences.
Another possibility is to allow people to buy their way out of jury duty, say with a $100 fine. But this would skew the jury pool to lower-income participants, which disrupts the ideal of a random cross-section of the defendant's community.
I do not expect the mandated jury service to be altered anytime soon, nor is the matter pressing given all the other obvious and severe violations of our rights. It is an interesting issue in that it involves an unusual tension between liberties and mandates. Even absent reform, I can't imagine why anyone would try to avoid jury service. My only irritation is that I have not actually been able to serve on a jury.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
'Unlawful Termination of a Pregnancy'
An odd Associated Press story published by today's Denver Post discusses a new bill to make the "unlawful termination of a pregnancy" a felony. What is odd about it is that Colorado statutes already make that a felony. Given the AP reporter didn't review the differences between existing statutes and the new bill, I'll go ahead and do it.
Linked through the Colorado legislature page are the Colorado Revised Statutes. Following are the relevant statutes already on the books:
Last year a Mesa County court sentenced a man to five years in prison for this crime, the Daily Sentinel reported.
So how is the new bill, 1256, introduced February 11, different? Mainly, it is much more complicated. It defines "unlawful termination of a pregnancy" from the first through fourth degrees. It also defines "vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy, and aggravated vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy."
While the bill improperly refers to "unborn children," thereby obscuring the very large difference between a born child and a fetus, it "does not confer the status of 'person' upon a human embryo, fetus, or unborn child at any stage of development prior to live birth."
It does make sense to increase the criminal penalties for deliberation and intent, as well as to criminalize reckless acts that cause the death of a fetus.
However, the sections pertaining to vehicles -- which constitute the bulk of the bill -- seem redundant; it shouldn't matter in law whether somebody kills a woman's fetus by recklessly driving a vehicle or through some other means. Notably, the sections pertaining to vehicles also include a lot of detail about driving under the influence of various substances, also unnecessary for this law. Obviously if someone is driving drunk, that is an instance of the broader category of reckless behavior.
In sum, this is a good bill overall that needs some amending. Specifically, the ambiguous, non-objective language about an "unborn child" should be removed, as should all the material specific to vehicles and operating vehicles under the influence of drugs. The legislature should strive to keep bills as short and simple as possible. However, because existing statutes on the matter are imprecise and don't allow for varying degrees of offense, the new bill (unlike most of the bills floating through the legislature) serves a legitimate purpose of protecting the rights of pregnant women.
Linked through the Colorado legislature page are the Colorado Revised Statutes. Following are the relevant statutes already on the books:
18-3.5-101. Unlawful termination of pregnancy.
(1) A person commits the offense of unlawful termination of a pregnancy if, with intent to terminate unlawfully the pregnancy of another person, the person unlawfully terminates the other person's pregnancy.
(2) Unlawful termination of a pregnancy is a class 4 felony.
18-3.5-102. Exclusions.
Nothing in this article shall permit the prosecution of a person for providing medical treatment, including but not limited to an abortion, in utero treatment, or treatment resulting in live birth, to a pregnant woman for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which consent is implied by law.
Last year a Mesa County court sentenced a man to five years in prison for this crime, the Daily Sentinel reported.
So how is the new bill, 1256, introduced February 11, different? Mainly, it is much more complicated. It defines "unlawful termination of a pregnancy" from the first through fourth degrees. It also defines "vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy, and aggravated vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy."
While the bill improperly refers to "unborn children," thereby obscuring the very large difference between a born child and a fetus, it "does not confer the status of 'person' upon a human embryo, fetus, or unborn child at any stage of development prior to live birth."
It does make sense to increase the criminal penalties for deliberation and intent, as well as to criminalize reckless acts that cause the death of a fetus.
However, the sections pertaining to vehicles -- which constitute the bulk of the bill -- seem redundant; it shouldn't matter in law whether somebody kills a woman's fetus by recklessly driving a vehicle or through some other means. Notably, the sections pertaining to vehicles also include a lot of detail about driving under the influence of various substances, also unnecessary for this law. Obviously if someone is driving drunk, that is an instance of the broader category of reckless behavior.
In sum, this is a good bill overall that needs some amending. Specifically, the ambiguous, non-objective language about an "unborn child" should be removed, as should all the material specific to vehicles and operating vehicles under the influence of drugs. The legislature should strive to keep bills as short and simple as possible. However, because existing statutes on the matter are imprecise and don't allow for varying degrees of offense, the new bill (unlike most of the bills floating through the legislature) serves a legitimate purpose of protecting the rights of pregnant women.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Real Page Numbers Coming to Kindle
When I first Tweeted the New York Times piece on how Kindle will incorporate real page numbers matching those in print editions, somebody emailed me wondering if I'd had something to do with that. I said I suspected not, even though I've written on the matter. But the language from Amazon's release does seem to cover the same points I raised.
Here is the Amazon release:
And here's what I posted on the matter last November:
Whether or not I helped inspire the change, I'm glad the change is coming.
Unfortunately, Amazon does not mention in its release how publishers accomplish adding the pagination, nor could I readily find this information in Amazon's information on Kindle publishing. If any reader knows about this, please email me or post the information in the comments.
Here is the Amazon release:
Our customers have told us they want real page numbers that match the page numbers in print books so they can easily reference and cite passages, and read alongside others in a book club or class. Rather than add page numbers that don’t correspond to print books, which is how page numbers have been added to e-books in the past, we're adding real page numbers that correspond directly to a book’s print edition.
And here's what I posted on the matter last November:
[A] big problem with digital editions of books these days is that there is no standardized pagination for citations. ... One of the comments [posted to the article] suggests another important use for standardized pagination; in reading groups, where people might be reading copies of a book on different devices, it would be very useful if everybody had a common page system.
Whether or not I helped inspire the change, I'm glad the change is coming.
Unfortunately, Amazon does not mention in its release how publishers accomplish adding the pagination, nor could I readily find this information in Amazon's information on Kindle publishing. If any reader knows about this, please email me or post the information in the comments.
Denver Post Reissues NREL's Misleading Release
There are two stories here. One is that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has put out an intellectually dishonest release touting the organization's benefits to Colorado's economy -- without counting any of the costs in terms of tax subsidies and transferred resources. The second story is that the Denver Post reissued this release as "news" without bothering to mention its status as a copied release; the byline claims it is "by The Denver Post."
Sure, if you totally ignore all the costs, any government expenditure looks like a great deal. Then again, if you ignore the costs, bank robbery also seems like a great deal, because look at how much the robbers are "stimulating" the economy by putting all that money into circulation! I have written about the general problem elsewhere, and economists have made the same rebuttals at least since the early 1800s.
But these sorts of releases are not intended as intellectually serious arguments; they are intended to stir up emotional support among economically illiterate (or simply dishonest) journalists, politicians, and taxpayers. So the fact that NREL would issue such a self-serving release is no surprise, even though any honest scientist working at the organization must be embarrassed by it.
I confess that I am surprised by the Post's treatment of the release. I first heard of the story when hard-core leftist-environmentalist Pete Maysmith mentioned it on his Twitter feed: "More evidence that renewable energy is a boon for CO's economy. #coleg http://bit.ly/g2P4Kz." The shortened link accesses the Denver Post "story." I got the idea that something was screwy when identical language showed up at Wind Today, and after a couple of phone calls I found the NREL release at the source.
I guess I just expected something a little more from the number thirteen newspaper in the nation.
Sure, if you totally ignore all the costs, any government expenditure looks like a great deal. Then again, if you ignore the costs, bank robbery also seems like a great deal, because look at how much the robbers are "stimulating" the economy by putting all that money into circulation! I have written about the general problem elsewhere, and economists have made the same rebuttals at least since the early 1800s.
But these sorts of releases are not intended as intellectually serious arguments; they are intended to stir up emotional support among economically illiterate (or simply dishonest) journalists, politicians, and taxpayers. So the fact that NREL would issue such a self-serving release is no surprise, even though any honest scientist working at the organization must be embarrassed by it.
I confess that I am surprised by the Post's treatment of the release. I first heard of the story when hard-core leftist-environmentalist Pete Maysmith mentioned it on his Twitter feed: "More evidence that renewable energy is a boon for CO's economy. #coleg http://bit.ly/g2P4Kz." The shortened link accesses the Denver Post "story." I got the idea that something was screwy when identical language showed up at Wind Today, and after a couple of phone calls I found the NREL release at the source.
I guess I just expected something a little more from the number thirteen newspaper in the nation.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Harvey Promotes Social Crusades, Not Tea Party Values
Dick Wadhams has dropped out of the race for Republican Chair, leaving State Senator Ted Harvey to fight it out with attorney Ryan Call (and perhaps others). Some have misleadingly attributed the shift to the Tea Parties.
Nobody can claim authority to speak for the Tea Parties as a whole, particularly with respect to Wadham's performance. The Tea Parties are a large, diverse, and disorganized group, and many Tea Partiers aren't even Republicans, much less party activists with a stake in the race for chair. (While I have attended numerous Tea Party events, for instance, I am registered unaffiliated.)
Moreover, Harvey hardly epitomizes Tea Party values of limited government and fiscal restraint, having instead earned his reputation as a big-government social crusader. While I do not deny that many self-proclaimed Tea Partiers embrace big-government social conservatism, the ideals of economic liberty and constitutionally limited government are closer to the heart of the Tea Party movement.
For those reasons, the movement to promote Harvey over Wadhams can hardly be said to be about the Tea Parties. I'm sure that many self-proclaimed Tea Partiers support Harvey and at the same time dislike Wadhams, but I'm equally sure that many Tea Partiers dislike both men equally or even favor the latter.
Contrary to deceptive claims by leftist "journalists," Wadhams did not "slam" the Tea Party in his statement about dropping out.
Instead, Wadhams said,
Wadhams told Lynn Bartels: "I have loved being chairman, but I’m tired of the nuts who have no grasp of what the state party's role is."
Note that Wadhams apparently is referring also to supporters of Dan Maes, whom many Tea Partiers initially supported but later abandoned in droves.
Meanwhile, it's not as though Wadhams is some tax-and-spend leftist; Vincent Carroll reminds us that he has spent his career working to elect (relative) fiscal conservatives.
What about Harvey? As Bartels summarizes, he "has made abortion and immigration issues the cornerstones of his career."
Let's look briefly at what motivates Harvey. In 2004, Harvey sponsored legislation trying to dictate how bookstores display "explicit materials." Harvey is also quite interested in restricting the rights of Coloradans to hire the employees of their choice, if they happen to be from out of the country.
The cause that seems to most animate Harvey is outlawing abortion. "Ted firmly believes that it is his duty as a legislator to defend the innocent unborn," i.e., to outlaw abortion. Harvey also touts on his web page, "Ted received the Legislator of the Year award from Colorado Right to Life in 2003." This is an organization that wants to totally ban abortion and ban all drugs and procedures that might prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, including the birth control pill. In announcing his candidacy for state senate, Harvey said, "Until my last breath, I will always champion life from conception to natural death" -- though his anti-abortion stance undermines the lives and liberties of women.
True, Harvey is relatively pro-liberty on issues like guns, taxes, and select economic controls. Yet I fear that Harvey will animate the religious right of his party and alienate unaffiliated voters and Republican secularists. A "Harvey Party" may well entrench the losing strategy of Ken Buck of leading with anti-liberty social controls. Nothing could be more disastrous for the Republican Party in this Interior West state where people tend to want government out of our wallets as well as our bedrooms.
Nobody can claim authority to speak for the Tea Parties as a whole, particularly with respect to Wadham's performance. The Tea Parties are a large, diverse, and disorganized group, and many Tea Partiers aren't even Republicans, much less party activists with a stake in the race for chair. (While I have attended numerous Tea Party events, for instance, I am registered unaffiliated.)
Moreover, Harvey hardly epitomizes Tea Party values of limited government and fiscal restraint, having instead earned his reputation as a big-government social crusader. While I do not deny that many self-proclaimed Tea Partiers embrace big-government social conservatism, the ideals of economic liberty and constitutionally limited government are closer to the heart of the Tea Party movement.
For those reasons, the movement to promote Harvey over Wadhams can hardly be said to be about the Tea Parties. I'm sure that many self-proclaimed Tea Partiers support Harvey and at the same time dislike Wadhams, but I'm equally sure that many Tea Partiers dislike both men equally or even favor the latter.
Contrary to deceptive claims by leftist "journalists," Wadhams did not "slam" the Tea Party in his statement about dropping out.
Instead, Wadhams said,
I have tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is while saying "uniting conservatives" is all that is needed to win competitive races across the state.
I have no delusions this will recede after the state central committee meeting in March. Meanwhile, the ability of Colorado Republicans to win and retain the votes of hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated swing voters in 2012 will be severely undermined.
Wadhams told Lynn Bartels: "I have loved being chairman, but I’m tired of the nuts who have no grasp of what the state party's role is."
Note that Wadhams apparently is referring also to supporters of Dan Maes, whom many Tea Partiers initially supported but later abandoned in droves.
Meanwhile, it's not as though Wadhams is some tax-and-spend leftist; Vincent Carroll reminds us that he has spent his career working to elect (relative) fiscal conservatives.
What about Harvey? As Bartels summarizes, he "has made abortion and immigration issues the cornerstones of his career."
Let's look briefly at what motivates Harvey. In 2004, Harvey sponsored legislation trying to dictate how bookstores display "explicit materials." Harvey is also quite interested in restricting the rights of Coloradans to hire the employees of their choice, if they happen to be from out of the country.
The cause that seems to most animate Harvey is outlawing abortion. "Ted firmly believes that it is his duty as a legislator to defend the innocent unborn," i.e., to outlaw abortion. Harvey also touts on his web page, "Ted received the Legislator of the Year award from Colorado Right to Life in 2003." This is an organization that wants to totally ban abortion and ban all drugs and procedures that might prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, including the birth control pill. In announcing his candidacy for state senate, Harvey said, "Until my last breath, I will always champion life from conception to natural death" -- though his anti-abortion stance undermines the lives and liberties of women.
True, Harvey is relatively pro-liberty on issues like guns, taxes, and select economic controls. Yet I fear that Harvey will animate the religious right of his party and alienate unaffiliated voters and Republican secularists. A "Harvey Party" may well entrench the losing strategy of Ken Buck of leading with anti-liberty social controls. Nothing could be more disastrous for the Republican Party in this Interior West state where people tend to want government out of our wallets as well as our bedrooms.
Friday, February 4, 2011
How About School Choice for Everyone?
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published by Grand Junction Free Press.
While President Obama delivered the State of the Union address in the District of Columbia, pundit and author Michelle Malkin discussed school choice at Vanguard charter school in Colorado Springs. They had rather different ideas about the state of American education and how to improve it.
Obama pointed out that, even though many American schools lag in graduation rates and math and science outcomes, some politically operated schools perform relatively well. Obama mentioned Bruce Randolph school in Denver, where community involvement and administrative reforms dramatically improved performance in recent years.
Obama believes federal programs play a central role in the functioning of American schools. The president looks for marginal reforms within the context of the traditional public school system.
Malkin, whose mother taught in New Jersey public schools, moved to Colorado largely because of the strong charter system here. She told the crowd at Vanguard, "I am your neighbor, and I'm so proud to be a resident of Colorado Springs. But more importantly, [I am] an incredibly fortunate beneficiary of people's commitment to excellence in education here in this city."
Malkin painted a disturbing portrait of American education, saying, "One in ten high schools in America is a 'drop out factory.'" Mind-crushing fads sweep through many of the rest. Despite some noteworthy exceptions, generally American schools suffer stagnant test scores even as their funding soars. Malkin said the typical leftist approach of throwing more money at education has bought us "cash for education clunkers."
In response to Obama's line about our "Sputnik moment," a reference to the 1957 Soviet space launch, Malkin said the real similarity between us and the Soviets is that "we still have a Soviet-style, government-run schools monopoly." So what do we do about it?
Many Colorado parents have turned to charter schools, still funded by taxpayers and governed by politicians but granted relatively more autonomy. Parents here can choose among all public schools relatively easily.
But the fundamental barrier to meaningful choice in education is that parents are forced to finance public schools. If they choose a private school, they must pay double: once for the public school they do not use, and once for the private school.
That is the reason why many conservatives, notably the late economist Milton Friedman, advocate vouchers. Recently the Douglas County school board caused a commotion by promising (or, as the left would put it, threatening) to study voucher programs.
A voucher allows a parent to direct a portion of the school tax funds to any school that qualifies under the program. The basic problem with vouchers is that they spend tax money on otherwise private schools, which might teach controversial ideas like religion.
An alternative to vouchers is a tax credit for education. This allows parents to enroll their child in any qualifying school and reduce their state tax burden by an amount determined by law. A more expansive tax credit allows any taxpayer to save on taxes by funding a scholarship for any child. This year Republican legislators Spencer Swalm and Kevin Lundberg introduced Bill 1048 to create such tax credits.
We propose giving taxpayers even more choice. Each taxpayer pays a certain amount for education through various taxes. Whatever that amount is, the taxpayer should be able to decide where that money goes. A taxpayer could decide to direct all the money to a single private school, a single public school, or any combination of schools.
Our plan would give people the incentive to evaluate schools and direct their money to wherever they think it will be spent most effectively.
For example, we are outraged that tax dollars support the Denver Green School, which indoctrinates children into the cult of environmentalism. As the Denver Post recently reported, teachers at this school led children in creating a power-point presentation condemning energy use. (Nevermind the fact that the presentation consumed electricity; this cult hardly values consistency.)
Under our proposal, those who wish to finance the leftist indoctrination of children could do so, while the rest of us could direct our resources to schools that teach children things like math and history.
Note that our proposal does not really give the taxpayer full choice over his or her resources. Even our plan falls short of the standard of individual rights and free markets, for it requires people to direct a portion of their resources to schools. Real liberty means people can spend their earnings however they wish, whether for schools, medical research, a new business, or a trip to the Bahamas.
The left recoils at the very mention of real liberty. Even legislation allowing taxpayers to direct all their school-related taxes to the schools of their choice would give the teachers' unions heart palpitations.
Nevertheless, we'll go ahead and say it: each individual has the right to control his own earnings, and he should be able to fund any school he wishes, or no school at all. Call it a Liberty Moment.
While President Obama delivered the State of the Union address in the District of Columbia, pundit and author Michelle Malkin discussed school choice at Vanguard charter school in Colorado Springs. They had rather different ideas about the state of American education and how to improve it.
Obama pointed out that, even though many American schools lag in graduation rates and math and science outcomes, some politically operated schools perform relatively well. Obama mentioned Bruce Randolph school in Denver, where community involvement and administrative reforms dramatically improved performance in recent years.
Obama believes federal programs play a central role in the functioning of American schools. The president looks for marginal reforms within the context of the traditional public school system.
Malkin, whose mother taught in New Jersey public schools, moved to Colorado largely because of the strong charter system here. She told the crowd at Vanguard, "I am your neighbor, and I'm so proud to be a resident of Colorado Springs. But more importantly, [I am] an incredibly fortunate beneficiary of people's commitment to excellence in education here in this city."
Malkin painted a disturbing portrait of American education, saying, "One in ten high schools in America is a 'drop out factory.'" Mind-crushing fads sweep through many of the rest. Despite some noteworthy exceptions, generally American schools suffer stagnant test scores even as their funding soars. Malkin said the typical leftist approach of throwing more money at education has bought us "cash for education clunkers."
In response to Obama's line about our "Sputnik moment," a reference to the 1957 Soviet space launch, Malkin said the real similarity between us and the Soviets is that "we still have a Soviet-style, government-run schools monopoly." So what do we do about it?
Many Colorado parents have turned to charter schools, still funded by taxpayers and governed by politicians but granted relatively more autonomy. Parents here can choose among all public schools relatively easily.
But the fundamental barrier to meaningful choice in education is that parents are forced to finance public schools. If they choose a private school, they must pay double: once for the public school they do not use, and once for the private school.
That is the reason why many conservatives, notably the late economist Milton Friedman, advocate vouchers. Recently the Douglas County school board caused a commotion by promising (or, as the left would put it, threatening) to study voucher programs.
A voucher allows a parent to direct a portion of the school tax funds to any school that qualifies under the program. The basic problem with vouchers is that they spend tax money on otherwise private schools, which might teach controversial ideas like religion.
An alternative to vouchers is a tax credit for education. This allows parents to enroll their child in any qualifying school and reduce their state tax burden by an amount determined by law. A more expansive tax credit allows any taxpayer to save on taxes by funding a scholarship for any child. This year Republican legislators Spencer Swalm and Kevin Lundberg introduced Bill 1048 to create such tax credits.
We propose giving taxpayers even more choice. Each taxpayer pays a certain amount for education through various taxes. Whatever that amount is, the taxpayer should be able to decide where that money goes. A taxpayer could decide to direct all the money to a single private school, a single public school, or any combination of schools.
Our plan would give people the incentive to evaluate schools and direct their money to wherever they think it will be spent most effectively.
For example, we are outraged that tax dollars support the Denver Green School, which indoctrinates children into the cult of environmentalism. As the Denver Post recently reported, teachers at this school led children in creating a power-point presentation condemning energy use. (Nevermind the fact that the presentation consumed electricity; this cult hardly values consistency.)
Under our proposal, those who wish to finance the leftist indoctrination of children could do so, while the rest of us could direct our resources to schools that teach children things like math and history.
Note that our proposal does not really give the taxpayer full choice over his or her resources. Even our plan falls short of the standard of individual rights and free markets, for it requires people to direct a portion of their resources to schools. Real liberty means people can spend their earnings however they wish, whether for schools, medical research, a new business, or a trip to the Bahamas.
The left recoils at the very mention of real liberty. Even legislation allowing taxpayers to direct all their school-related taxes to the schools of their choice would give the teachers' unions heart palpitations.
Nevertheless, we'll go ahead and say it: each individual has the right to control his own earnings, and he should be able to fund any school he wishes, or no school at all. Call it a Liberty Moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)