Recently economist Bruce Yandle wrote, "Inflation doubled from 1.1% in the fourth quarter to 2.2% in the first quarter, but that's when they take out food and energy prices. For real people, inflation is 3.8% (including food and energy prices)." (We can appease the Austrians by distinguishing price inflation from monetary inflation.)
But I wonder if even that figure is wildly understated for at least some consumers. Consider some examples from my local grocery store:
* I noticed that the same package of sausage dropped in size from 16 to 14 ounces, a 14 percent price increase.
* Milk has gone from $1.99 per gallon to $2.69, a 35 percent increase. June 1 Update: I notice that milk is now on sale for $2.29, so a 15 percent increase.
* Whereas a package of cream cheese used to go on sale for $1 per package, the new sale price is $1.25, a 25 percent increase.
* I've been able to find fewer good markdown deals lately, which I take to be a combination of more people looking for them and grocers fighting tighter margins. A non-markdown item easily can cost double.
The wealthy, who already spend a ton of money on food, easily can reduce their spending with marginal shopping changes. But I suspect that, for lower-income shoppers, the real pain of inflation is considerably higher than the official figures indicate. These are also the people probably last in line for wage hikes or even getting hired.
And, according to one source, the April rate is 3.16 percent.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Use Tax Criminals
In a recent op-ed published through the Independence Institute, I argue that Colorado's "use tax" is "a nuisance tax that turns good citizens into tax criminals." (If, like most people I've talked to, you have no idea what the use tax even is, I refer you to the article.)
The op-ed was published by the May 25 Salida Mountain Mail and the May 27 Denver Daily News. Check out either of those publications for the full piece.
I make the following arguments.
* The "use tax" is a time-consuming nuisance for consumers to pay (as my wife and I discovered).
* Because it is such a nuisance, the state makes little effort to enforce it, and hardly anybody pays it. But that turns huge numbers of Coloradans into tax criminals, exposing them to the risk of arbitrary, politically motivated enforcement.
* It is neither fair nor Constitutional of the Colorado legislature to try to force out-of-state companies to enforce the use tax, as those companies gain practically no benefits from Colorado tax expenditures.
* Besides, requiring large, out-of-state companies to help enforce the use tax would not cover all the relevant taxed items, so it would still be a nuisance for Colorado citizens and it would still turn many Coloradans into tax criminals.
Update: following is the entire text.
How many tax criminals has Colorado’s 'use tax' created?
You may be a criminal under Colorado’s tax laws without even knowing it. Probably most Coloradans are tax criminals. Merely by reading this article you’ll no longer remain blissfully ignorant of the tax in question, the "use tax."
So what is the use tax? Anytime you purchase something from out of state without paying Colorado sales tax -- say, if you buy something from Amazon -- you're supposed to pay the equivalent use tax to the state for the privilege of using the item here. You're supposed to keep track of all such items over the year and then cut the state a check.
The use tax is a nuisance tax that's difficult to pay. Consider the experiences of my wife and me. After we paid the use tax, not only for last year, but for the past seven years, the Colorado Department of Revenue acknowledged our tax compliance by sending us two erroneous letters claiming we owed the tax.
The only reason the Department of Revenue thought we owed the use tax is that we told them we owed it -- in the same letter in which we enclosed our check for the entire amount. The tax bureaucrats cashed our check but apparently still failed to notice that we paid the tax. I felt a bit like a minor character in Franz Kafka’s novel "The Trial," in which the authorities relentlessly pursue a man on mysterious charges.
Dealing with the paperwork consumed a huge portion of the value of the tax. My wife and I spent about 6.5 hours combined figuring out the tax, and about two more hours combined responding to the Department of Revenue's bogus complaints, in order to pay a total tax of $436.93. The Department of Revenue will waste who knows how much more of their time and ours figuring out that, yes, we did in fact pay the use tax.
Partly because the use tax is such a nuisance for citizens to pay, the state makes practically zero effort to enforce it, collect it, or even notify citizens that it exists. But if you don't pay your use tax, doesn't that make you a criminal? That's the implication of an April 8 release from the Colorado Attorney General’s office, which alleges that tax-cutting activist Douglas Bruce committed a felony for evading taxes and a misdemeanor for "failure to file a return or pay a tax." The complaint against Bruce involves the income tax, but presumably the same rules apply to all taxes.
A law that turns huge numbers of Coloradans into criminals is a bad law. By not even trying to enforce the law, the state encourages citizens to skip it. And most do. But that raises the specter of arbitrary, politically motivated enforcement.
Last year, the legislature tried to pass off enforcement of the law largely to Amazon and other online retailers, in clear violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Not surprisingly, a judge ruled against the law, which still failed to motivate the legislature to repeal it this year. Because of the ongoing dispute, Amazon and other companies decline to pay Colorado residents for referrals (so as to avoid creating a business "nexus"), which costs the state income tax revenues.
In-state retailers argue that the use tax equalizes the tax burden for in-state and out-of-state purchases. But out-of-state companies gain none of the benefits of tax-funded roads, police protection, and so on, so they should not be conscripted by Colorado legislators to help enforce state tax law.
By the very nature of the use tax, there is no good way to enforce it. It is a nuisance tax that turns otherwise good citizens into tax criminals.
Ari Armstrong's book Values of Harry Potter sells through Amazon, and Ari used to be an Amazon associate. He is a guest writer for the Independence Institute, a Golden-based libertarian think tank. The views expressed in this guest editorial are those of the Independence Institute and not necessarily those of the Denver Daily News.
The op-ed was published by the May 25 Salida Mountain Mail and the May 27 Denver Daily News. Check out either of those publications for the full piece.
I make the following arguments.
* The "use tax" is a time-consuming nuisance for consumers to pay (as my wife and I discovered).
* Because it is such a nuisance, the state makes little effort to enforce it, and hardly anybody pays it. But that turns huge numbers of Coloradans into tax criminals, exposing them to the risk of arbitrary, politically motivated enforcement.
* It is neither fair nor Constitutional of the Colorado legislature to try to force out-of-state companies to enforce the use tax, as those companies gain practically no benefits from Colorado tax expenditures.
* Besides, requiring large, out-of-state companies to help enforce the use tax would not cover all the relevant taxed items, so it would still be a nuisance for Colorado citizens and it would still turn many Coloradans into tax criminals.
Update: following is the entire text.
How many tax criminals has Colorado’s 'use tax' created?
You may be a criminal under Colorado’s tax laws without even knowing it. Probably most Coloradans are tax criminals. Merely by reading this article you’ll no longer remain blissfully ignorant of the tax in question, the "use tax."
So what is the use tax? Anytime you purchase something from out of state without paying Colorado sales tax -- say, if you buy something from Amazon -- you're supposed to pay the equivalent use tax to the state for the privilege of using the item here. You're supposed to keep track of all such items over the year and then cut the state a check.
The use tax is a nuisance tax that's difficult to pay. Consider the experiences of my wife and me. After we paid the use tax, not only for last year, but for the past seven years, the Colorado Department of Revenue acknowledged our tax compliance by sending us two erroneous letters claiming we owed the tax.
The only reason the Department of Revenue thought we owed the use tax is that we told them we owed it -- in the same letter in which we enclosed our check for the entire amount. The tax bureaucrats cashed our check but apparently still failed to notice that we paid the tax. I felt a bit like a minor character in Franz Kafka’s novel "The Trial," in which the authorities relentlessly pursue a man on mysterious charges.
Dealing with the paperwork consumed a huge portion of the value of the tax. My wife and I spent about 6.5 hours combined figuring out the tax, and about two more hours combined responding to the Department of Revenue's bogus complaints, in order to pay a total tax of $436.93. The Department of Revenue will waste who knows how much more of their time and ours figuring out that, yes, we did in fact pay the use tax.
Partly because the use tax is such a nuisance for citizens to pay, the state makes practically zero effort to enforce it, collect it, or even notify citizens that it exists. But if you don't pay your use tax, doesn't that make you a criminal? That's the implication of an April 8 release from the Colorado Attorney General’s office, which alleges that tax-cutting activist Douglas Bruce committed a felony for evading taxes and a misdemeanor for "failure to file a return or pay a tax." The complaint against Bruce involves the income tax, but presumably the same rules apply to all taxes.
A law that turns huge numbers of Coloradans into criminals is a bad law. By not even trying to enforce the law, the state encourages citizens to skip it. And most do. But that raises the specter of arbitrary, politically motivated enforcement.
Last year, the legislature tried to pass off enforcement of the law largely to Amazon and other online retailers, in clear violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Not surprisingly, a judge ruled against the law, which still failed to motivate the legislature to repeal it this year. Because of the ongoing dispute, Amazon and other companies decline to pay Colorado residents for referrals (so as to avoid creating a business "nexus"), which costs the state income tax revenues.
In-state retailers argue that the use tax equalizes the tax burden for in-state and out-of-state purchases. But out-of-state companies gain none of the benefits of tax-funded roads, police protection, and so on, so they should not be conscripted by Colorado legislators to help enforce state tax law.
By the very nature of the use tax, there is no good way to enforce it. It is a nuisance tax that turns otherwise good citizens into tax criminals.
Ari Armstrong's book Values of Harry Potter sells through Amazon, and Ari used to be an Amazon associate. He is a guest writer for the Independence Institute, a Golden-based libertarian think tank. The views expressed in this guest editorial are those of the Independence Institute and not necessarily those of the Denver Daily News.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Memorial Day Links
My great-grandfather Ralph Garver served in World War I.
My grandfather Theo Eversol served 44 months in WWII. Some of his remarks are recorded in a first and second article. My paternal grandfather Otto Armstrong served in the same war, also in the Pacific Rim.
Earlier this year I interviewed my father Linn about his experiences in Vietnam. He wrote more about his tour in a 2007 article.
My step-father Marshall Davis also served in Vietnam.
A number of my more-distant family members have also served at various times, as have numerous friends.
Last year, I interviewed Seymour Glass of the 445th Bomb Group. The resulting videos are extraordinary.
Thank you all.
My grandfather Theo Eversol served 44 months in WWII. Some of his remarks are recorded in a first and second article. My paternal grandfather Otto Armstrong served in the same war, also in the Pacific Rim.
Earlier this year I interviewed my father Linn about his experiences in Vietnam. He wrote more about his tour in a 2007 article.
My step-father Marshall Davis also served in Vietnam.
A number of my more-distant family members have also served at various times, as have numerous friends.
Last year, I interviewed Seymour Glass of the 445th Bomb Group. The resulting videos are extraordinary.
Thank you all.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Michael Hancock's 'Collective Farm' Foolishness
Talk about great timing! Just as Grand Junction Free Press publishes an article from my dad and me on the economic harms of spending more for local goods, the Denver Post releases an article by Chuck Plunkett discussing the "buy local" proposal of Michael Hancock, who is running for mayor of Denver.
Hancock wants to "create thousands of new jobs for Denver citizens" by promoting urban farming, Plunkett quotes.
Thankfully, Plunkett also quotes somebody who actually knows what he's talking about. Philip Graves, an economist at CU, told Plunkett that if such gardening were economical, "it would already be happening." And, in the best line quoted so far this year by the Post, Graves said Hancock's plan "is akin to the notoriously inefficient 'collective farms' of the old Soviet Union."
Now, urban gardening might be fun and emotionally rewarding, and it might indeed save some people a bit on their grocery bills. But Hancock's idea that it might generate many jobs and substantially benefit the economy is foolishness. Hancock needs to brush on on a couple of basic economic concepts. The first is economies of scale -- in many cases larger operations operate much more efficiently, far offsetting the transportation costs. Second, some regions offer natural production advantages. It turns out that growing food usually is best done on (wait for it...) farmland, not in densely populated cities. Regional advantage is a subset of the more general principle of comparative advantage.
Now, there is something government can do to promote local, small-scale agriculture, and that is get the hell out of the way. A recent story at Big Government reviews a couple of cases of USDA harassment and intimidation of small-scale producers. Timothy Sandefur's book The Right to Earn a Living contains numerous examples of how the federal government has trampled economic liberties, often harming especially small-scale farmers.
First came Hancock with his Creationist silliness, and now urban collective farms. I guess we'd better get used to the sound of "Mayor Romer."
Hancock wants to "create thousands of new jobs for Denver citizens" by promoting urban farming, Plunkett quotes.
Thankfully, Plunkett also quotes somebody who actually knows what he's talking about. Philip Graves, an economist at CU, told Plunkett that if such gardening were economical, "it would already be happening." And, in the best line quoted so far this year by the Post, Graves said Hancock's plan "is akin to the notoriously inefficient 'collective farms' of the old Soviet Union."
Now, urban gardening might be fun and emotionally rewarding, and it might indeed save some people a bit on their grocery bills. But Hancock's idea that it might generate many jobs and substantially benefit the economy is foolishness. Hancock needs to brush on on a couple of basic economic concepts. The first is economies of scale -- in many cases larger operations operate much more efficiently, far offsetting the transportation costs. Second, some regions offer natural production advantages. It turns out that growing food usually is best done on (wait for it...) farmland, not in densely populated cities. Regional advantage is a subset of the more general principle of comparative advantage.
Now, there is something government can do to promote local, small-scale agriculture, and that is get the hell out of the way. A recent story at Big Government reviews a couple of cases of USDA harassment and intimidation of small-scale producers. Timothy Sandefur's book The Right to Earn a Living contains numerous examples of how the federal government has trampled economic liberties, often harming especially small-scale farmers.
First came Hancock with his Creationist silliness, and now urban collective farms. I guess we'd better get used to the sound of "Mayor Romer."
Why Spending More for Local Goods Harms the Economy
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published May 27 by Grand Junction Free Press under the title, "Channel 11 piece peddles economic nonsense." Stay tuned for a related update about the views of Denver mayoral hopeful Michael Hancock.
If Bernie Lange had taken to the airwaves to promote therapeutic magnetic underwear or report alien anal probes, he rightly would have been laughed off the station. But apparently peddling economic nonsense fits perfectly well with the editorial policies over at Channel 11 News, the local NBC affiliate.
Last week the station broadcast the segment "Made In America," a silly editorial masquerading as news that falsely argues buying overpriced American products creates jobs. Spending less for the same products made overseas, Lange intones sinisterly, costs Americans not only jobs but "billions in lost dollars." That's due to "the multipliers," you see.
Thankfully, French economist Frédéric Bastiat* exposed Lange's brand of foolishness way back in 1845 in his "Candlemakers' petition." To update the example, consider an obvious way to create jobs galore for manufacturers of light bulbs and the electricity required to run them. Simply block out all sunlight from your home. Board up all the windows. Think of all the American jobs we'd create if we all followed that one simple step. Say no to extraterrestrial sunlight!
Or consider the blight of foreign-made bananas and coffee. Scandalously, Americans tend to buy both those products from Central and South America. Think of all the American jobs we could create if we bought those goods only from U.S. suppliers, or better yet Colorado suppliers.
Impossible, you say? If you check out the web page of Denver Botanic Gardens, you will discover the center currently grows bananas, coffee, and chocolate right here in Colorado (as one of our friends pointed out). No doubt we could grow all those things locally if farmers spent enough on greenhouses and heaters.
Sure, the products would cost more, but just think of "the multipliers!" We could add billions upon billions of dollars to our economy just by spending more on the goods we consume every day. Indeed, by Lange's logic, the more we spend, the more we prosper!
Clearly there's something wrong with Lange's reasoning. To get a better idea of the problem, consider Bastiat's wisdom about the seen and the unseen. Bastiat writes, "The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen."
What Lange sees are the manufacturing jobs lost. What Lange ignores are the exporting jobs created and the additional wealth made possible by trade.
Lange sees that spending more money on American-made products would contribute to the paychecks of American workers. Lange ignores the fact that spending more money on the same goods would deprive other businesses of those dollars. If you spend more money on toys and household items, you have less to spend with the local fruit grower or massage therapist.
Let's get back to basics. Why should we trade at all? Why shouldn't each individual produce everything he needs, all by himself? The answer should be obvious: everyone would become horrifically poor, and only a tiny fraction of today's population would manage to survive at all. Just imagine making all your own clothes, growing all your own food, building your own shelter, and acting as your own dentist.
By trading, we benefit from other people's skills, expertise, accumulated machinery, and natural advantages. Why does Lange think it's any different when we trade with people in other towns, other states, or other nations?
China features lots of cheap labor. We would be fools not to take advantage of that. America, on the other hand, features lots of complex machinery and other capital goods made possible by industrialization and relative economic liberty. That's why (as the CIA reports) per capita product in China is around $7,400 annually, whereas in the United States it's $47,400.
If we stop buying stuff that China's relatively good at making, that means we have to make stuff that we're relatively bad at making. Such a policy is self-destructive. Buying cheap goods from China and elsewhere allows American workers to specialize on the things they make best.
Of course, it is worth looking into artificial reasons why some American companies move overseas, including high tax rates and business-crushing union policies. We should also explore the reasons for continued high domestic unemployment, particularly the Obama administration's policies of blowing out the deficit and meddling in the economy. But let's fix the underlying problems, not succumb to economic fantasies.
We doubt very seriously that Bernie Lange or anyone else at Channel 11 makes much of an effort to buy only American-made goods. And they'd be foolish to do so. Trade is all about specialization according to one's strengths. We hope, therefore, that Channel 11 sticks to reporting the news and leaves the economic commentary to people like Bastiat.
* Note: I was paid a modest sum to help run Liberty In the Books, which has reviewed select works of Bastiat.
If Bernie Lange had taken to the airwaves to promote therapeutic magnetic underwear or report alien anal probes, he rightly would have been laughed off the station. But apparently peddling economic nonsense fits perfectly well with the editorial policies over at Channel 11 News, the local NBC affiliate.
Last week the station broadcast the segment "Made In America," a silly editorial masquerading as news that falsely argues buying overpriced American products creates jobs. Spending less for the same products made overseas, Lange intones sinisterly, costs Americans not only jobs but "billions in lost dollars." That's due to "the multipliers," you see.
Thankfully, French economist Frédéric Bastiat* exposed Lange's brand of foolishness way back in 1845 in his "Candlemakers' petition." To update the example, consider an obvious way to create jobs galore for manufacturers of light bulbs and the electricity required to run them. Simply block out all sunlight from your home. Board up all the windows. Think of all the American jobs we'd create if we all followed that one simple step. Say no to extraterrestrial sunlight!
Or consider the blight of foreign-made bananas and coffee. Scandalously, Americans tend to buy both those products from Central and South America. Think of all the American jobs we could create if we bought those goods only from U.S. suppliers, or better yet Colorado suppliers.
Impossible, you say? If you check out the web page of Denver Botanic Gardens, you will discover the center currently grows bananas, coffee, and chocolate right here in Colorado (as one of our friends pointed out). No doubt we could grow all those things locally if farmers spent enough on greenhouses and heaters.
Sure, the products would cost more, but just think of "the multipliers!" We could add billions upon billions of dollars to our economy just by spending more on the goods we consume every day. Indeed, by Lange's logic, the more we spend, the more we prosper!
Clearly there's something wrong with Lange's reasoning. To get a better idea of the problem, consider Bastiat's wisdom about the seen and the unseen. Bastiat writes, "The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen."
What Lange sees are the manufacturing jobs lost. What Lange ignores are the exporting jobs created and the additional wealth made possible by trade.
Lange sees that spending more money on American-made products would contribute to the paychecks of American workers. Lange ignores the fact that spending more money on the same goods would deprive other businesses of those dollars. If you spend more money on toys and household items, you have less to spend with the local fruit grower or massage therapist.
Let's get back to basics. Why should we trade at all? Why shouldn't each individual produce everything he needs, all by himself? The answer should be obvious: everyone would become horrifically poor, and only a tiny fraction of today's population would manage to survive at all. Just imagine making all your own clothes, growing all your own food, building your own shelter, and acting as your own dentist.
By trading, we benefit from other people's skills, expertise, accumulated machinery, and natural advantages. Why does Lange think it's any different when we trade with people in other towns, other states, or other nations?
China features lots of cheap labor. We would be fools not to take advantage of that. America, on the other hand, features lots of complex machinery and other capital goods made possible by industrialization and relative economic liberty. That's why (as the CIA reports) per capita product in China is around $7,400 annually, whereas in the United States it's $47,400.
If we stop buying stuff that China's relatively good at making, that means we have to make stuff that we're relatively bad at making. Such a policy is self-destructive. Buying cheap goods from China and elsewhere allows American workers to specialize on the things they make best.
Of course, it is worth looking into artificial reasons why some American companies move overseas, including high tax rates and business-crushing union policies. We should also explore the reasons for continued high domestic unemployment, particularly the Obama administration's policies of blowing out the deficit and meddling in the economy. But let's fix the underlying problems, not succumb to economic fantasies.
We doubt very seriously that Bernie Lange or anyone else at Channel 11 makes much of an effort to buy only American-made goods. And they'd be foolish to do so. Trade is all about specialization according to one's strengths. We hope, therefore, that Channel 11 sticks to reporting the news and leaves the economic commentary to people like Bastiat.
* Note: I was paid a modest sum to help run Liberty In the Books, which has reviewed select works of Bastiat.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Nook Advances
I'm a Kindle man. Not only do I have a book about Harry Potter selling for Kindle, but I own a Kindle, and I read books on my iPod Touch with Kindle software.
But I like Barnes and Noble (BN), largely because a local store allows Liberty In the Books (a group I help run) to meet there. So, every month, I walk through the store and talk to the staff about the latest developments for the Nook. (I've caught a bit of ribbing for bringing my Kindle into BN.)
The brilliant thing is that both the Kindle and the Nook now sell for $139 -- very reasonable even for lower-income consumers. Virtually all well-known public-domain books are available for free for these devices.
It now seems very likely that BN's Nook is here to stay, and that it will save the company.
Impressively, the new Nook brings together two important features, so far as I'm aware for the first time: e-ink (and the long battery life that comes with it) and a touchscreen. (Thank goodness the new Nook dropped that idiotic split screen of earlier models, part touch and part e-ink.)
Frankly, I've taken to reading on my iTouch more than my Kindle. There are several reasons for this. The Touch fits in my pocket, so I can take it pretty much anywhere. I really like navigating a book with the touchscreen. On the Kindle, it's a real hassle to click down to the link and jump back and forth. While I like the Kindle screen, the Touch looks great, and I haven't noticed any eye strain. Plus, whether I'm reading a printed book, the Kindle, or a Kindle book on the Touch, I tend to use the Touch to take notes. So, if I'm reading from the Touch, I can read and take notes on the same device. (I wouldn't dream of trying to take notes on the clunky Kindle.)
The new Nook isn't small enough to fit in my pocket, but it is touchscreen, which must help a lot. Goodbye, mouse-sized keypad! And, while the Touch is a much more versatile device, it also currently starts at $229.
I predict that, until Kindle adopts touchscreen technology, the Nook will make larger inroads into Amazon's potential market.
One question is how powerful the Nook is as a pad computer. A BN staffer suggested to me that a variety of applications are coming for the device. Unfortunately, I am unable to find ready information about this. If the Nook can also serve as a word processor, and perhaps even as an email and web device, that will greatly improve its value.
(I have not actually held or even seen the new Nook. If Barnes and Noble would care to lend or gift me one, I would be happy to write up a full review, complete with a disclosure. Given that my wife and I already have four digital reading devices between us, including our Mac, I just can't justify buying a fifth.)
Even though I'm unlikely personally to buy a Nook, I'm glad it exists. It gives BN a real chance of surviving and perhaps even thriving as a company (or as a division of some other company), and it has noticeably motivated Amazon to keep improving the quality of the Kindle while lowering its price. Hurray, capitalism.
But I like Barnes and Noble (BN), largely because a local store allows Liberty In the Books (a group I help run) to meet there. So, every month, I walk through the store and talk to the staff about the latest developments for the Nook. (I've caught a bit of ribbing for bringing my Kindle into BN.)
The brilliant thing is that both the Kindle and the Nook now sell for $139 -- very reasonable even for lower-income consumers. Virtually all well-known public-domain books are available for free for these devices.
It now seems very likely that BN's Nook is here to stay, and that it will save the company.
Impressively, the new Nook brings together two important features, so far as I'm aware for the first time: e-ink (and the long battery life that comes with it) and a touchscreen. (Thank goodness the new Nook dropped that idiotic split screen of earlier models, part touch and part e-ink.)
Frankly, I've taken to reading on my iTouch more than my Kindle. There are several reasons for this. The Touch fits in my pocket, so I can take it pretty much anywhere. I really like navigating a book with the touchscreen. On the Kindle, it's a real hassle to click down to the link and jump back and forth. While I like the Kindle screen, the Touch looks great, and I haven't noticed any eye strain. Plus, whether I'm reading a printed book, the Kindle, or a Kindle book on the Touch, I tend to use the Touch to take notes. So, if I'm reading from the Touch, I can read and take notes on the same device. (I wouldn't dream of trying to take notes on the clunky Kindle.)
The new Nook isn't small enough to fit in my pocket, but it is touchscreen, which must help a lot. Goodbye, mouse-sized keypad! And, while the Touch is a much more versatile device, it also currently starts at $229.
I predict that, until Kindle adopts touchscreen technology, the Nook will make larger inroads into Amazon's potential market.
One question is how powerful the Nook is as a pad computer. A BN staffer suggested to me that a variety of applications are coming for the device. Unfortunately, I am unable to find ready information about this. If the Nook can also serve as a word processor, and perhaps even as an email and web device, that will greatly improve its value.
(I have not actually held or even seen the new Nook. If Barnes and Noble would care to lend or gift me one, I would be happy to write up a full review, complete with a disclosure. Given that my wife and I already have four digital reading devices between us, including our Mac, I just can't justify buying a fifth.)
Even though I'm unlikely personally to buy a Nook, I'm glad it exists. It gives BN a real chance of surviving and perhaps even thriving as a company (or as a division of some other company), and it has noticeably motivated Amazon to keep improving the quality of the Kindle while lowering its price. Hurray, capitalism.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Is McInnis Exonerated?
The basic facts of the plagiarism scandal that brought down Scott McInnis's gubernatorial campaign have not changed since they were reported last fall. The Hasan Family Foundation paid McInnis $300,000 for a series of articles on water and related speaking engagements. McInnis paid Rolly Fischer "a few hundred dollars per article" to do much or most of this work. Fischer, claiming he thought McInnis just wanted background material, handed in text largely written by Judge Gregory J. Hobbs.
In short, McInnis turned in the work of somebody else, compiled by somebody else, under his own name, for a $300,000 paycheck. The best that can be said of McInnis's behavior is that was a complete scumbag whom voters were quite sensible to reject. The only bright spot is that McInnis "has since repaid the foundation the full amount," the Denver Post reports.
But did McInnis do anything illegal or anything that should cost him his license to practice law? The Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel sensibly says no. In letters signed by John Gleason, the Counsel describes the following findings:
"In 2005, Mr. McInnis instructed Mr. Fisher [sic throughout] not to plagiarize any work in the articles he drafted... Mr Fisher did not and does not believe that such use was plagiarism, as he believes Justice Hobbs' article is part of the 'public domain.' Mr. Fisher did not disclose to Mr. McInnis that he had imported the work of Justice Hobbs into his article. ... Mr. McInnis did disclose his retention of a research assistant to Ms. Hasan in writing in 2005, contrary to the Foundation's representation in its press release in 2010."
So, in other words, McInnis didn't know "his" work contained large sections of uncited material, and McInnis told the Foundation that he had a "research assistant" (who apparently did practically all the work for a tiny fraction of the pay).
If that's a "vindication" or an "exoneration," I'd hate to see a conviction! In the words of the Counsel, "[T]here is not clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the disciplinary rules." Just so.
In seeing some conservatives rush to praise McInnis (and, in some cases, to castigate the Hasans), I can't help drawing a contrast to the conservative reaction to Bill Clinton's sex scandal. In a certain, twisted sense, Clinton "did not have sex with that woman" (because an Oval Office blow job arguably doesn't count as "sex") and "there's nothing going on between us" (because "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is").
It is in that Clintonian sense that we may boldly declare: "Scott McInnis did not have plagiarism in that paper, 'Musings on Water.'"
In short, McInnis turned in the work of somebody else, compiled by somebody else, under his own name, for a $300,000 paycheck. The best that can be said of McInnis's behavior is that was a complete scumbag whom voters were quite sensible to reject. The only bright spot is that McInnis "has since repaid the foundation the full amount," the Denver Post reports.
But did McInnis do anything illegal or anything that should cost him his license to practice law? The Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel sensibly says no. In letters signed by John Gleason, the Counsel describes the following findings:
"In 2005, Mr. McInnis instructed Mr. Fisher [sic throughout] not to plagiarize any work in the articles he drafted... Mr Fisher did not and does not believe that such use was plagiarism, as he believes Justice Hobbs' article is part of the 'public domain.' Mr. Fisher did not disclose to Mr. McInnis that he had imported the work of Justice Hobbs into his article. ... Mr. McInnis did disclose his retention of a research assistant to Ms. Hasan in writing in 2005, contrary to the Foundation's representation in its press release in 2010."
So, in other words, McInnis didn't know "his" work contained large sections of uncited material, and McInnis told the Foundation that he had a "research assistant" (who apparently did practically all the work for a tiny fraction of the pay).
If that's a "vindication" or an "exoneration," I'd hate to see a conviction! In the words of the Counsel, "[T]here is not clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the disciplinary rules." Just so.
In seeing some conservatives rush to praise McInnis (and, in some cases, to castigate the Hasans), I can't help drawing a contrast to the conservative reaction to Bill Clinton's sex scandal. In a certain, twisted sense, Clinton "did not have sex with that woman" (because an Oval Office blow job arguably doesn't count as "sex") and "there's nothing going on between us" (because "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is").
It is in that Clintonian sense that we may boldly declare: "Scott McInnis did not have plagiarism in that paper, 'Musings on Water.'"
Does TABOR Violate the U.S. Constitution?
As the Denver Post reports, a Colorado group is suing to invalidate the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights [TABOR], on the grounds that it violates "the U.S. Constitution guarantee that states have a 'republican' government."
I think the lawsuit is complete bunk, basically a PR stunt, and I predict it will be quickly tossed out of court.
As Professor Robert Natelson concludes in a 1999 paper, "[T]he Framers clearly acknowledged that republican government need not be purely representative[;] that it may contain significant elements of direct democracy. ... The continued pressing of Guarantee Clause arguments against I&R [initiative and referendum] in defiance of unanimous historical and legal authority results in delay, vexation, and a waste of judicial and other resources. The courts should put those arguments to rest forthwith by classifying them as frivolous and imposing appropriate sanctions on the parties who raise them."
But it is worth looking a bit more into the arguments surrounding the suit.
First I want to point out three bad arguments against the suit. One goes something like this: "Because TABOR is itself a state constitutional provision, it cannot violate the federal constitution." Obviously that's wrong. Originally the U.S. Constitution prevented the states from doing all sorts of things, such as putting up trade barriers. Indeed, restraining state governments was a major motivation for creating the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment restricts state governments even more severely (and thank goodness). I have argued that the Colorado campaign laws -- also part of the state constitution -- violate the First Amendment.
Others have pointed out that several state governments permit citizen initiatives and referendums and have done so for a long time. But that by itself does not justify the citizen initiative; many governments have done the wrong thing for long periods of time. If something is wrong or unjust, it hardly becomes justified merely by being compounded.
Another bad argument against the suit is that "the people" have the right to impose whatever they want through law. Obviously that's inconsistent with the principle of individual rights. The Founders rightly feared mob rule and tried to protect against it.
Clearly Article IV, Section 4 of the federal constitution restrains state government in important ways, stating, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." Clearly, then, Colorado voters could not pass a constitutional amendment imposing a state-level hereditary dictator.
The question, then, is whether the citizen vote on law is compatible with a "republican" form of government. I think the Colorado Senate Republicans explained the point nicely in a release: "The plaintiffs in this lawsuit display a profound misunderstanding of what the founders of our nation and authors of the US Constitution meant by guaranteeing a 'republican form of government.' A republican form of government is above all a government with lawmakers bound by a constitution."
Another question entirely is whether direct citizen vote is a good idea, though compatible with the U.S. Constitution. I can think of no good reason why citizens should not be allowed to vote on some statutory matters. I see no inherent problem with raising the bar for citizen votes to change the state constitution. Even advocates of the current rules must admit that the voters have at times made a mess of things. The unfortunate incentive is for groups to run unalterable constitutional amendments even for issues best left to the statutes. A constitution is supposed to be the most basic and fundamental law, not a repository of special-interest group finagling. Regardless of the rules of our state and era, we as individual voters should take revisions of the the constitution with utmost seriousness.
I think the lawsuit is complete bunk, basically a PR stunt, and I predict it will be quickly tossed out of court.
As Professor Robert Natelson concludes in a 1999 paper, "[T]he Framers clearly acknowledged that republican government need not be purely representative[;] that it may contain significant elements of direct democracy. ... The continued pressing of Guarantee Clause arguments against I&R [initiative and referendum] in defiance of unanimous historical and legal authority results in delay, vexation, and a waste of judicial and other resources. The courts should put those arguments to rest forthwith by classifying them as frivolous and imposing appropriate sanctions on the parties who raise them."
But it is worth looking a bit more into the arguments surrounding the suit.
First I want to point out three bad arguments against the suit. One goes something like this: "Because TABOR is itself a state constitutional provision, it cannot violate the federal constitution." Obviously that's wrong. Originally the U.S. Constitution prevented the states from doing all sorts of things, such as putting up trade barriers. Indeed, restraining state governments was a major motivation for creating the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment restricts state governments even more severely (and thank goodness). I have argued that the Colorado campaign laws -- also part of the state constitution -- violate the First Amendment.
Others have pointed out that several state governments permit citizen initiatives and referendums and have done so for a long time. But that by itself does not justify the citizen initiative; many governments have done the wrong thing for long periods of time. If something is wrong or unjust, it hardly becomes justified merely by being compounded.
Another bad argument against the suit is that "the people" have the right to impose whatever they want through law. Obviously that's inconsistent with the principle of individual rights. The Founders rightly feared mob rule and tried to protect against it.
Clearly Article IV, Section 4 of the federal constitution restrains state government in important ways, stating, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." Clearly, then, Colorado voters could not pass a constitutional amendment imposing a state-level hereditary dictator.
The question, then, is whether the citizen vote on law is compatible with a "republican" form of government. I think the Colorado Senate Republicans explained the point nicely in a release: "The plaintiffs in this lawsuit display a profound misunderstanding of what the founders of our nation and authors of the US Constitution meant by guaranteeing a 'republican form of government.' A republican form of government is above all a government with lawmakers bound by a constitution."
Another question entirely is whether direct citizen vote is a good idea, though compatible with the U.S. Constitution. I can think of no good reason why citizens should not be allowed to vote on some statutory matters. I see no inherent problem with raising the bar for citizen votes to change the state constitution. Even advocates of the current rules must admit that the voters have at times made a mess of things. The unfortunate incentive is for groups to run unalterable constitutional amendments even for issues best left to the statutes. A constitution is supposed to be the most basic and fundamental law, not a repository of special-interest group finagling. Regardless of the rules of our state and era, we as individual voters should take revisions of the the constitution with utmost seriousness.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Barbera: 'Why I Love America'
In a recent talk, Kirk Barbera describes how he reminds himself in specific, concrete detail of why he loves America -- and why the nation's principles of freedom are worth fighting for.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Green Doomsday Cultists
So the world is going to end tomorrow. Perhaps when it doesn't the religious doomsday cultists will finally shut the hell up, at least for a little while.
I have to wonder, though, whether the doomsday scenarios of the environmentalists make much more sense.
Following in the footsteps of the global cooling and global warming scares comes the "climate change" scare. This latest iteration seems altogether too convenient, because the climate is always changing and has always been changing since the formation of the earth. Ironically, environmentalists blast critics as "climate change deniers," when those critics are the ones pointing out that climate change long preceded humanity and, thus, obviously is driven largely (if not entirely) by non-human factors. Even Al Gore's book provides ample evidence of non-human caused climate change, and Nova's "Becoming Human" shows that humans evolved in an African climate that gyrated wildly between rain forest and desert. Yet environmentalists insist that, while pre-industrial climate change was caused entirely by natural factors, post-industrial climate change is caused mostly by human activity.
Also notice how environmentalists (and their lap-dog media) routinely latch onto any short-term weather pattern as proof of long-range "climate change." If the weather is a little warmer, or a little cooler, or a little dryer, or a little wetter than average, then sound the alarms! Human-Caused Climate Change Invades New York! (Or wherever.)
It's been raining in Colorado quite a lot over the past few days, and snowing in the mountains -- allowing Aspen Mountain to reopen for the weekend and contributing to 25-foot drifts on Independence Pass -- so obviously the reason is human-caused climate change. But just a few years ago, the environmentalists warned us that human-caused climate change would lead to drought and shorter skiing seasons.
That's a pretty convenient theory that fits any and all possible weather and climate variations. At a certain point I think it's reasonable to wonder whether claims of "human-caused climate change" remain theoretically open to challenge.
I do not doubt that, at certain stages of very-long-running climate cycles, the weather gets jumpier (more varied) than at other times. We might even be in one of those stages. But proving that would require quite a lot of evidence about present and past conditions -- and good record-keeping on such matters began fairly recently. Proving that more variable weather is caused by human activity would require a far more robust set of facts. But notice how frequently we are urged to jump, without any substantial evidence, from "climate change" to "humans obviously caused it."
In Biblical mythology, Adam and Eve lived in a technology-free state of environmental perfection. Then man sinned, setting off a a chain of events that some think will climax tomorrow. The environmentalists seem to concoct a similar ideal state -- a climate paradise untouched by man -- thrown into chaos by human industry.
But the climate has always been in a state of flux, and people have always suffered natural catastrophes, including wild weather patterns. It is only industrialization that has allowed us to protect ourselves from the fickle and destructive forces of nature.
I have to wonder, though, whether the doomsday scenarios of the environmentalists make much more sense.
Following in the footsteps of the global cooling and global warming scares comes the "climate change" scare. This latest iteration seems altogether too convenient, because the climate is always changing and has always been changing since the formation of the earth. Ironically, environmentalists blast critics as "climate change deniers," when those critics are the ones pointing out that climate change long preceded humanity and, thus, obviously is driven largely (if not entirely) by non-human factors. Even Al Gore's book provides ample evidence of non-human caused climate change, and Nova's "Becoming Human" shows that humans evolved in an African climate that gyrated wildly between rain forest and desert. Yet environmentalists insist that, while pre-industrial climate change was caused entirely by natural factors, post-industrial climate change is caused mostly by human activity.
Also notice how environmentalists (and their lap-dog media) routinely latch onto any short-term weather pattern as proof of long-range "climate change." If the weather is a little warmer, or a little cooler, or a little dryer, or a little wetter than average, then sound the alarms! Human-Caused Climate Change Invades New York! (Or wherever.)
It's been raining in Colorado quite a lot over the past few days, and snowing in the mountains -- allowing Aspen Mountain to reopen for the weekend and contributing to 25-foot drifts on Independence Pass -- so obviously the reason is human-caused climate change. But just a few years ago, the environmentalists warned us that human-caused climate change would lead to drought and shorter skiing seasons.
That's a pretty convenient theory that fits any and all possible weather and climate variations. At a certain point I think it's reasonable to wonder whether claims of "human-caused climate change" remain theoretically open to challenge.
I do not doubt that, at certain stages of very-long-running climate cycles, the weather gets jumpier (more varied) than at other times. We might even be in one of those stages. But proving that would require quite a lot of evidence about present and past conditions -- and good record-keeping on such matters began fairly recently. Proving that more variable weather is caused by human activity would require a far more robust set of facts. But notice how frequently we are urged to jump, without any substantial evidence, from "climate change" to "humans obviously caused it."
In Biblical mythology, Adam and Eve lived in a technology-free state of environmental perfection. Then man sinned, setting off a a chain of events that some think will climax tomorrow. The environmentalists seem to concoct a similar ideal state -- a climate paradise untouched by man -- thrown into chaos by human industry.
But the climate has always been in a state of flux, and people have always suffered natural catastrophes, including wild weather patterns. It is only industrialization that has allowed us to protect ourselves from the fickle and destructive forces of nature.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Political Development Versus Economic Development
Political "economic development" harms the economy by diverting resources from more-valued to less-valued uses. Sure, it's easy for politicians to point to the fancy shops and such resulting from politicized development, but, as Bastiat and Hazlitt warn, we must also pay attention to all the goods and services NOT produced because of the diverted resources.
Unfortunately, today development has less to do with anticipating and meeting the needs of consumers and more to do with sucking up to politicians and city bureaucrats. Those unable to gain the subsidies and special tax breaks -- notably, older, established businesses -- must compete on an unlevel playing field. Meanwhile, developers waste precious resources playing the political game that could otherwise go into valuable production.
The Denver Post recently reported, "The city of Westminster plans to demolish the blighted Westminster Mall to develop a downtown for the 100-year-old community. At a special meeting Monday, the City Council unanimously approved a deal to pay $22 million to Westminster Mall Co., a partnership between Kansas City, Mo.-based Dreiseszun & Morgan and Dillard's."
See my previous article on the city's bogus declaration of blight. This issue isn't about blight; it's about the city playing games with taxpayer money to try to win back sales tax revenue from the Flatiron Mall in Broomfield.
As Brian Vande Krol notes, there are reasons to be skeptical of the city's grand plans (though I have not personally verified all of his claims): "The Westminster Mall has received millions in taxpayer 'investments' over the years. It was once home to 300 shops. Then Westminster helped develop the Westminster Promenade, and then the Shops at Walnut Creek. Now Westminster Mall has 15 shops. The city is buying the mall, and you and I are once again 'investing' in the property. And the Promenade is losing tenants."
The Promenade does host some empty shops, though it also has a number of apparently quite successful businesses. But I remember a few years back the Promenade featured a large, garish sign promising a city-assisted development of a new health center and related facilities at that location. I returned to the sight of the sign a couple days ago and found the following:
It is quite sad to walk through the Westminster Mall these days; most of the shops are closed down. The city, by taking a hostile stand against the mall's owners while implying sweat deals for the right players, made unlikely any independent action regarding the property.
Maybe the tax-subsidized redevelopment will become as successful as the city hopes, and maybe it won't. Either way, the city has no business gambling other people's money on the project.
Unfortunately, today development has less to do with anticipating and meeting the needs of consumers and more to do with sucking up to politicians and city bureaucrats. Those unable to gain the subsidies and special tax breaks -- notably, older, established businesses -- must compete on an unlevel playing field. Meanwhile, developers waste precious resources playing the political game that could otherwise go into valuable production.
The Denver Post recently reported, "The city of Westminster plans to demolish the blighted Westminster Mall to develop a downtown for the 100-year-old community. At a special meeting Monday, the City Council unanimously approved a deal to pay $22 million to Westminster Mall Co., a partnership between Kansas City, Mo.-based Dreiseszun & Morgan and Dillard's."
See my previous article on the city's bogus declaration of blight. This issue isn't about blight; it's about the city playing games with taxpayer money to try to win back sales tax revenue from the Flatiron Mall in Broomfield.
As Brian Vande Krol notes, there are reasons to be skeptical of the city's grand plans (though I have not personally verified all of his claims): "The Westminster Mall has received millions in taxpayer 'investments' over the years. It was once home to 300 shops. Then Westminster helped develop the Westminster Promenade, and then the Shops at Walnut Creek. Now Westminster Mall has 15 shops. The city is buying the mall, and you and I are once again 'investing' in the property. And the Promenade is losing tenants."
The Promenade does host some empty shops, though it also has a number of apparently quite successful businesses. But I remember a few years back the Promenade featured a large, garish sign promising a city-assisted development of a new health center and related facilities at that location. I returned to the sight of the sign a couple days ago and found the following:
It is quite sad to walk through the Westminster Mall these days; most of the shops are closed down. The city, by taking a hostile stand against the mall's owners while implying sweat deals for the right players, made unlikely any independent action regarding the property.
Maybe the tax-subsidized redevelopment will become as successful as the city hopes, and maybe it won't. Either way, the city has no business gambling other people's money on the project.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Eina Kleina Social Security Analysis
Ezra Klein is very smart. Unfortunately, sometimes he allows his factual research to limit his worldview to the status quo; he becomes a conservative in the worst sense of that term. Consider his recent article on Social Security.
Klein argues, "Over the next 75 years, Social Security’s shortfall is equal to about 0.7 percent of GDP. ... Social Security’s 75-year shortfall is manageable. In fact, it'd be almost completely erased by applying the payroll tax to income over $106,000."
But "the numbers" -- not actually facts but projections -- obscure all the important details about the issue.
A mere fraction of a percent of GDP may not sound like much until we realize that the economy has been weighed down by many such burdens. A trillion here, a trillion there, as the saying goes. Social Security is one of several welfare entitlement programs -- see also Medicare and Medicaid -- threatening to drag down the American economy.
Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office's projections that Klein cites presumes the government can predict GDP nearly a century out -- which of course is quite ridiculous. Because most projections show steady GDP gains, the relative size of the Social Security burden appears much lower than its actual cost.
Further saddling "the rich" with higher taxes, of course, only discourages productive effort and thereby impedes the rate of economic growth. So does expanding a welfare program that encourages people to work and save less.
In addition, the "facts" that Klein cites contain the outright fraudulent presumption that "the current balance in the OASDI trust funds" (see page ix of the report) somehow mitigates the program's liabilities. They do not, for reasons Paul Hsieh explains.
So the fact that Social Security threatens to erode a "mere" 0.7 percent of additional projected GDP (or CBO says 0.6 percent) is indeed quite troubling.
An even worse example of Klein's static thinking may be found in his comment, "Without Social Security, 45 percent of seniors would be under the poverty line. With Social Security, 10 percent of seniors are under the poverty line." But other things would definitely NOT be equal.
Here's the big fact that Klein utterly ignores: Social Security financially devastates workers, and especially lower-income workers, by stripping off a huge portion of their paychecks to subsidize a welfare program for the elderly. This constitutes the most serious financial impediment to younger workers climbing out of debt, getting ahead financially, and starting a real investment program for themselves.
In other words, one huge reason some elderly people drop into poverty is that Social Security prevented (and discouraged) them from saving for their own retirements.
I am, however, partly sympathetic with one of Klein's conclusions: "Raising the retirement age is the worst of all possible options for reforming Social Security. It’s not only regressive, but it also falls most heavily on those with the worst jobs. Means-testing would be much better."
I say I'm only partly sympathetic because the tax itself is horribly regressive, so easing the tax by raising the payout age (which notably is NOT the same thing as the "retirement age") would, on net, greatly ease the burdens of lower-income workers.
One big reason I have advocated the complete phasing out of Social Security by slowly raising the payout age is its simplicity. It's very easy to understand and implement.
But, if Klein insists on further easing the burdens of those at lower incomes, I am more than happy to reach a compromise by means-testing our way out of the horrid program. We could phase the entire thing out simply by lowering the qualifying income line over time. But this is messy: do we count recent annual income or total assets? Wouldn't means-testing encourage the elderly to make themselves artificially poor in order to qualify?
Honest leftists would decry the regressive nature of the Social Security tax and call to replace the entire bloated system with a simpler welfare program for the elderly. As it stands, Social Security often punishes the working poor to reward the elderly rich. That's insanity by any coherent ideology. (The fact that the left nevertheless advocates Social Security demonstrates only that the left is more interested in using the issue to gain power than in actually helping the poor.) Update: I retract this criticism; if the left's ideological goal is to make people dependent on the state, Social Security succeeds spectacularly.
The much broader issue is that people have a right to dispose of their own income as they see fit, whether to spend it, save it, or voluntarily donate it to charity. Thus, while I'm happy to go slow on reform, I do advocate the complete phasing out of Social Security (and indeed the entire welfare state).
To modify my compromise proposal, we could immediately means-test Social Security payments on a sliding scale, so as to mitigate wasteful gaming. Reduce the Social Security tax across the board accordingly. Then set the payout age to increase slowly over time, until the program is completely phased out.
Now that's real reform -- and one consistent with the full body of relevant facts.
Klein argues, "Over the next 75 years, Social Security’s shortfall is equal to about 0.7 percent of GDP. ... Social Security’s 75-year shortfall is manageable. In fact, it'd be almost completely erased by applying the payroll tax to income over $106,000."
But "the numbers" -- not actually facts but projections -- obscure all the important details about the issue.
A mere fraction of a percent of GDP may not sound like much until we realize that the economy has been weighed down by many such burdens. A trillion here, a trillion there, as the saying goes. Social Security is one of several welfare entitlement programs -- see also Medicare and Medicaid -- threatening to drag down the American economy.
Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office's projections that Klein cites presumes the government can predict GDP nearly a century out -- which of course is quite ridiculous. Because most projections show steady GDP gains, the relative size of the Social Security burden appears much lower than its actual cost.
Further saddling "the rich" with higher taxes, of course, only discourages productive effort and thereby impedes the rate of economic growth. So does expanding a welfare program that encourages people to work and save less.
In addition, the "facts" that Klein cites contain the outright fraudulent presumption that "the current balance in the OASDI trust funds" (see page ix of the report) somehow mitigates the program's liabilities. They do not, for reasons Paul Hsieh explains.
So the fact that Social Security threatens to erode a "mere" 0.7 percent of additional projected GDP (or CBO says 0.6 percent) is indeed quite troubling.
An even worse example of Klein's static thinking may be found in his comment, "Without Social Security, 45 percent of seniors would be under the poverty line. With Social Security, 10 percent of seniors are under the poverty line." But other things would definitely NOT be equal.
Here's the big fact that Klein utterly ignores: Social Security financially devastates workers, and especially lower-income workers, by stripping off a huge portion of their paychecks to subsidize a welfare program for the elderly. This constitutes the most serious financial impediment to younger workers climbing out of debt, getting ahead financially, and starting a real investment program for themselves.
In other words, one huge reason some elderly people drop into poverty is that Social Security prevented (and discouraged) them from saving for their own retirements.
I am, however, partly sympathetic with one of Klein's conclusions: "Raising the retirement age is the worst of all possible options for reforming Social Security. It’s not only regressive, but it also falls most heavily on those with the worst jobs. Means-testing would be much better."
I say I'm only partly sympathetic because the tax itself is horribly regressive, so easing the tax by raising the payout age (which notably is NOT the same thing as the "retirement age") would, on net, greatly ease the burdens of lower-income workers.
One big reason I have advocated the complete phasing out of Social Security by slowly raising the payout age is its simplicity. It's very easy to understand and implement.
But, if Klein insists on further easing the burdens of those at lower incomes, I am more than happy to reach a compromise by means-testing our way out of the horrid program. We could phase the entire thing out simply by lowering the qualifying income line over time. But this is messy: do we count recent annual income or total assets? Wouldn't means-testing encourage the elderly to make themselves artificially poor in order to qualify?
Honest leftists would decry the regressive nature of the Social Security tax and call to replace the entire bloated system with a simpler welfare program for the elderly. As it stands, Social Security often punishes the working poor to reward the elderly rich. That's insanity by any coherent ideology. (The fact that the left nevertheless advocates Social Security demonstrates only that the left is more interested in using the issue to gain power than in actually helping the poor.) Update: I retract this criticism; if the left's ideological goal is to make people dependent on the state, Social Security succeeds spectacularly.
The much broader issue is that people have a right to dispose of their own income as they see fit, whether to spend it, save it, or voluntarily donate it to charity. Thus, while I'm happy to go slow on reform, I do advocate the complete phasing out of Social Security (and indeed the entire welfare state).
To modify my compromise proposal, we could immediately means-test Social Security payments on a sliding scale, so as to mitigate wasteful gaming. Reduce the Social Security tax across the board accordingly. Then set the payout age to increase slowly over time, until the program is completely phased out.
Now that's real reform -- and one consistent with the full body of relevant facts.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Freedom Stories: The Entrepreneur and the Immigrant
Earlier this month Brian Vande Krol and Luis Tavel delivered speeches about some of their personal experiences. Vande Krol notes that he enjoys "extreme sports" such as skydiving, but the real risks to his life and success come from onerous bureaucratic controls on business. Tavel discusses his journey from Bolivia to Colorado.
(As is always the case, my posting a video of somebody else does not imply that party's agreement with all of my views or vice versa.)
(As is always the case, my posting a video of somebody else does not imply that party's agreement with all of my views or vice versa.)
Monday, May 16, 2011
Making the First Amendment Part of the Conversation
That Colorado's campaign laws chill free speech when it comes to speaking out for or against ballot measures is now established, incontestable fact. The reams of dense legalize, the onerous reporting requirements, and the risk of getting sued simply keep many citizen activists from getting involved in funded campaigns. On May 11, I taped an edition of Jon Caldara's "Devil's Advocate" on Channel 12 to discuss these issues.
I draw your attention to the exchange starting at marker 8:39:
Jenny Flanagan of Colorado Common Cause: "The reality is, the Colorado Constitution requires disclosure. That's what we have on the books."
Me: "The reality is we have a First Amendment."
Flanagan: "That's the reality. That issue [the Colorado laws' compatibility with the First Amendment] has not been challenged, and that's not part of the conversation right now."
It's a pretty sad day when the First Amendment is not part of the conversation when it comes to political speech. And that is precisely the problem I seek to redress.
Note: On May 13, two days after the show taped (but before it aired), the Secretary of State's office announced the rule change raising the "trigger" level for issue-group reporting from $200 to $5,000.
See also my previous links on the matter:
Public's Alleged "Right to Know" Should Not Trump Free Speech
Colorado's Campaign Laws Throw Common Sense Out the Window
Arnold Testifies on Campaign Laws
CO Campaign Laws Chill Speech (Videos)
Why Colorado's Campaign Laws Constitute Censorship
SOS Looks to Mitigate Burden of Campaign Censorship Laws
I draw your attention to the exchange starting at marker 8:39:
Jenny Flanagan of Colorado Common Cause: "The reality is, the Colorado Constitution requires disclosure. That's what we have on the books."
Me: "The reality is we have a First Amendment."
Flanagan: "That's the reality. That issue [the Colorado laws' compatibility with the First Amendment] has not been challenged, and that's not part of the conversation right now."
It's a pretty sad day when the First Amendment is not part of the conversation when it comes to political speech. And that is precisely the problem I seek to redress.
Note: On May 13, two days after the show taped (but before it aired), the Secretary of State's office announced the rule change raising the "trigger" level for issue-group reporting from $200 to $5,000.
See also my previous links on the matter:
Public's Alleged "Right to Know" Should Not Trump Free Speech
Colorado's Campaign Laws Throw Common Sense Out the Window
Arnold Testifies on Campaign Laws
CO Campaign Laws Chill Speech (Videos)
Why Colorado's Campaign Laws Constitute Censorship
SOS Looks to Mitigate Burden of Campaign Censorship Laws
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Public's Alleged "Right to Know" Should Not Trump Free Speech
The Colorado Springs Gazette published my latest op-ed on Colorado's campaign laws. In this piece, I address the question of whether the public's alleged "right to know" the financial details of political advocacy can justify the violation of the individual right of free speech. Obviously I argue it cannot.
Colorado's campaign laws violate free speech in two different ways, I review in the piece. First, they force the citizen activist to jump through bureaucratic hoops, and suffer possible law suits, in order to run a funded campaign for or against any ballot measure. Second, the campaign laws outlaw anonymous speech regarding such campaigns.
I therefore conclude, "The fact that the public’s alleged 'right to know' clashes with the fundamental human right of free speech indicates that there simply is no public 'right to know' regarding details about private citizens. It is only a legal entitlement masquerading as a right." People do have the right to disclose their financial details if they wish and to evaluate campaigns based on disclosures.
On May 13, the Secretary of State's office announced that it had adopted the rule change discussed in the piece, raising the "trigger" amount for issue-group reporting from $200 to $5,000.
Please read the entire piece for details. See also the Grand Junction Free Press article by my dad and me that examines the same issue from another angle.
Colorado's campaign laws violate free speech in two different ways, I review in the piece. First, they force the citizen activist to jump through bureaucratic hoops, and suffer possible law suits, in order to run a funded campaign for or against any ballot measure. Second, the campaign laws outlaw anonymous speech regarding such campaigns.
I therefore conclude, "The fact that the public’s alleged 'right to know' clashes with the fundamental human right of free speech indicates that there simply is no public 'right to know' regarding details about private citizens. It is only a legal entitlement masquerading as a right." People do have the right to disclose their financial details if they wish and to evaluate campaigns based on disclosures.
On May 13, the Secretary of State's office announced that it had adopted the rule change discussed in the piece, raising the "trigger" amount for issue-group reporting from $200 to $5,000.
Please read the entire piece for details. See also the Grand Junction Free Press article by my dad and me that examines the same issue from another angle.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Colorado's Campaign Laws Throw Common Sense Out the Window
The following article by Linn and Ari Armtrong originally was published May 13 by Grand Junction Free Press.
It is December of 1787. You hold an intense interest in a revolutionary document, the proposed Constitution for the United States. Will you speak out, or will you remain silent?
Maybe you could write out your thoughts and print them in a pamphlet to distribute in your town. Pamphlets, signed and unsigned, for decades played a crucial role in American political discourse; eventually they would fill such books as Pamphlets of the American Revolution. Or you could rent out a room to hold a meeting. You contemplate the opportunities.
Your friend just returned from Pennsylvania, where he witnessed an attack on James Wilson, a key drafter of the Constitution. Eventually this story would become part of the tapestry of Catherine Drinker Bowen's book Miracle at Philadelphia. These are tense times. Should you speak out anonymously?
You have heard the debate over the missing Bill of Rights. Would the new federal government protect such cherished liberties as freedom of speech? In just a few years such concerns would give rise to the First Amendment, guaranteeing that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
Now imagine, if you can, the impossible absurdity of some bureaucrat standing up to proclaim, "Anyone wishing to speak out on the proposed Constitution must first register with the proper authorities, then report to those authorities the names and addresses of every significant donor to your cause, as well as all of your significant expenses, as defined by said authorities, on penalty of daily fines, and in accordance with a hundred pages of dense legalese. To assist you with this process, the government will run classes instructing you on the proper way to speak your minds."
Can you imagine how Sam Adams, or John Hancock, or the then-anonymous writers of the Federalist essays, or any of the founders would react to such a demand? The Federalists and Anti-Federalists would momentarily forget their dispute in joint outrage. If he were exceptionally lucky, all that would happen to such a bureaucrat is that he would be tarred and feathered and then run out of town on a rail.
And yet those controls on speech describe the burdens Coloradans now face if they wish to speak out on any ballot measure. And we did this to ourselves. Or, rather, a tyrannical majority, stirred to passion by anti-liberty activists, did it to the minority. In 2002 voters approved Amendment 27, now Article XXVIII of the state constitution, to impose campaign censorship.
For censorship is precisely what the campaign laws accomplish. As several activists told the Secretary of State earlier this month in written and oral comments, the laws in fact prevent some people from speaking out, or speaking out as much, because of the onerous requirements. (To listen to Ari's testimony and other comments, see FreeColorado.com.)
At least the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a small activist group that got sued under the campaign laws. Because of this ruling, Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who expressed grave concerns about the chilling effect of the campaign laws on free speech, proposed a rule raising the "trigger" spending level for filing as an issue group from $200 to $5,000.
Consider a few of the campaign laws' legion absurdities. If you run a newspaper, you are not subject to the rules. If you print up pamphlets, you are. What if you start up something which to you seems like a newspaper, but which to your political opponents seems like political campaigning? Then you get sued.
If you speak out directly on a ballot measure, you are subject to the rules. If you "educate" the public only about the underlying issues, you are not. At the Secretary of State's meeting, Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench testified to the absurdity of an issue group getting sued by an attack group not subject to the same requirements. Arnold should know: he himself was sued by the laughably named "Colorado Ethics Watch."
On February 14, 1776, an anonymous author put the lie to the left's paranoia about financial influence. He wrote, "Who the author of this production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the object for attention is the doctrine itself, not the man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, that he is unconnected with any party, and under no sort of influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle."
Today we know the author to be Thomas Paine. The work is Common Sense. He merely stated his authenticity, and proved it only through the cogency of his arguments, which he presumed individuals intelligent enough to grasp and independently evaluate.
Yet Colorado's campaign laws throw Common Sense out the window.
It is December of 1787. You hold an intense interest in a revolutionary document, the proposed Constitution for the United States. Will you speak out, or will you remain silent?
Maybe you could write out your thoughts and print them in a pamphlet to distribute in your town. Pamphlets, signed and unsigned, for decades played a crucial role in American political discourse; eventually they would fill such books as Pamphlets of the American Revolution. Or you could rent out a room to hold a meeting. You contemplate the opportunities.
Your friend just returned from Pennsylvania, where he witnessed an attack on James Wilson, a key drafter of the Constitution. Eventually this story would become part of the tapestry of Catherine Drinker Bowen's book Miracle at Philadelphia. These are tense times. Should you speak out anonymously?
You have heard the debate over the missing Bill of Rights. Would the new federal government protect such cherished liberties as freedom of speech? In just a few years such concerns would give rise to the First Amendment, guaranteeing that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
Now imagine, if you can, the impossible absurdity of some bureaucrat standing up to proclaim, "Anyone wishing to speak out on the proposed Constitution must first register with the proper authorities, then report to those authorities the names and addresses of every significant donor to your cause, as well as all of your significant expenses, as defined by said authorities, on penalty of daily fines, and in accordance with a hundred pages of dense legalese. To assist you with this process, the government will run classes instructing you on the proper way to speak your minds."
Can you imagine how Sam Adams, or John Hancock, or the then-anonymous writers of the Federalist essays, or any of the founders would react to such a demand? The Federalists and Anti-Federalists would momentarily forget their dispute in joint outrage. If he were exceptionally lucky, all that would happen to such a bureaucrat is that he would be tarred and feathered and then run out of town on a rail.
And yet those controls on speech describe the burdens Coloradans now face if they wish to speak out on any ballot measure. And we did this to ourselves. Or, rather, a tyrannical majority, stirred to passion by anti-liberty activists, did it to the minority. In 2002 voters approved Amendment 27, now Article XXVIII of the state constitution, to impose campaign censorship.
For censorship is precisely what the campaign laws accomplish. As several activists told the Secretary of State earlier this month in written and oral comments, the laws in fact prevent some people from speaking out, or speaking out as much, because of the onerous requirements. (To listen to Ari's testimony and other comments, see FreeColorado.com.)
At least the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a small activist group that got sued under the campaign laws. Because of this ruling, Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who expressed grave concerns about the chilling effect of the campaign laws on free speech, proposed a rule raising the "trigger" spending level for filing as an issue group from $200 to $5,000.
Consider a few of the campaign laws' legion absurdities. If you run a newspaper, you are not subject to the rules. If you print up pamphlets, you are. What if you start up something which to you seems like a newspaper, but which to your political opponents seems like political campaigning? Then you get sued.
If you speak out directly on a ballot measure, you are subject to the rules. If you "educate" the public only about the underlying issues, you are not. At the Secretary of State's meeting, Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench testified to the absurdity of an issue group getting sued by an attack group not subject to the same requirements. Arnold should know: he himself was sued by the laughably named "Colorado Ethics Watch."
On February 14, 1776, an anonymous author put the lie to the left's paranoia about financial influence. He wrote, "Who the author of this production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the object for attention is the doctrine itself, not the man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, that he is unconnected with any party, and under no sort of influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle."
Today we know the author to be Thomas Paine. The work is Common Sense. He merely stated his authenticity, and proved it only through the cogency of his arguments, which he presumed individuals intelligent enough to grasp and independently evaluate.
Yet Colorado's campaign laws throw Common Sense out the window.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Let's Smear Ayn Rand!
With the release of the mediocre Atlas Shrugged film, smearing Ayn Rand has practically risen to a national pastime. No other literary figure I can think of has been subjected to such relentless and dishonest attacks. Usually, those who most viciously smear Rand display the least understanding of her ideas.
There are basically three reasons why Rand is the target of such nasty smear campaigns. First, because Rand was an atheist, she is hated and condemned by much of the right. The most notorious, and probably still the most blatantly dishonest, attack on Rand was published by National Review. Second, because Rand was an arch-capitalist, a defender of laissez-faire, and a harsh critic of the Soviet experiment, she is hated by most of the left. Third, the two early biographies about Rand were written by Barbara and Nathaniel Branden, hardly objective sources given their personal spat with Rand, and arguably vicious liars. Unfortunately, those two distorted biographies continue to set the tone for many of Rand's detractors.
It is almost comical how people who otherwise have little in common nevertheless manage to create echo-chambers of anti-Rand smears. Consider the following line by Mark Moe from the Denver Post: "If this [alleged description of Rand's ideas] sounds like 4th grade tantrumspeak, well, conservative columnist Michael Gerson agrees. Recently he called 'Atlas' a product of 'adult onset adolescence.'"
Indeed, I find it baffling why an otherwise-respectable newspaper would publish a smear-job that so blatantly misrepresents Rand's basic ideas that it almost reads as parody. Moe writes, "[T]hough Rand's monomaniacal philosophy of Objectivism can be boiled down into a few simple axioms, her style is a study in verbose bloviation by characters who are little more than cartoonish megaphones for her stunted worldview." Okay, then! Apparently enough smears strung together can substitute for an argument.
Or consider right-winger John Andrews's bizarre claims about Rand:
Rand is similar to Obama in that both are "messianic?" That's just silly. "No great reverence for the Founders?" That's just willful ignorance; Rand consistently praised the Founders for creating the greatest nation on earth. (True, Rand offered some criticisms of the original Constitution, as did a great many of the Founders.)
Even Rand's fair-weather friends often take cheap shots. For example, the following comment from Mike Rosen has absolutely no basis in reality: "There were many challenges in converting the book to a movie. At the top of the list was the task of satisfying the Ayn Rand Institute, the objectivist high priests who keep her flame burning and whose approval was a condition of the movie rights." Rand's estate, not the Institute, sold the movie rights long ago, without any such conditions. (That's unfortunate; had the Institute had any significant say in the movie, it probably would have been a lot better.)
Obviously Rand made some mistakes in her life; which novelist hasn't? She could have a fiery temper (hardly uncommon among creative types, though she could also be sweet as a kitten), and I don't see how her affair with Branden can be regarded as anything other than a gigantic mistake. But some of Rand's critics seem to think that, by recounting only Rand's flaws while ignoring her many virtues, exaggerating those flaws, completely distorting her ideas, and stacking smear upon ugly smear, they can simply ignore what Rand had to say.
Fortunately, Rand's audience has never been those who let other people's smears substitute for their own thinking. So read Atlas Shrugged for yourself, and evaluate its literary merits, and its ideas, by your own reasoned judgment.
There are basically three reasons why Rand is the target of such nasty smear campaigns. First, because Rand was an atheist, she is hated and condemned by much of the right. The most notorious, and probably still the most blatantly dishonest, attack on Rand was published by National Review. Second, because Rand was an arch-capitalist, a defender of laissez-faire, and a harsh critic of the Soviet experiment, she is hated by most of the left. Third, the two early biographies about Rand were written by Barbara and Nathaniel Branden, hardly objective sources given their personal spat with Rand, and arguably vicious liars. Unfortunately, those two distorted biographies continue to set the tone for many of Rand's detractors.
It is almost comical how people who otherwise have little in common nevertheless manage to create echo-chambers of anti-Rand smears. Consider the following line by Mark Moe from the Denver Post: "If this [alleged description of Rand's ideas] sounds like 4th grade tantrumspeak, well, conservative columnist Michael Gerson agrees. Recently he called 'Atlas' a product of 'adult onset adolescence.'"
Indeed, I find it baffling why an otherwise-respectable newspaper would publish a smear-job that so blatantly misrepresents Rand's basic ideas that it almost reads as parody. Moe writes, "[T]hough Rand's monomaniacal philosophy of Objectivism can be boiled down into a few simple axioms, her style is a study in verbose bloviation by characters who are little more than cartoonish megaphones for her stunted worldview." Okay, then! Apparently enough smears strung together can substitute for an argument.
Or consider right-winger John Andrews's bizarre claims about Rand:
Messianism is messianism: foolish at best, hypnotic at worst. The grandiosity of Barack Obama and the will to power of Saul Alinsky cry for relief. The country must be rid of them, and soon. But the antidote is not John Galt and Ayn Rand. The messianic similarities are too close. One political panacea can't cure another.
The novel's final scene tells how Galt "raised his hand and traced in space the sign of the dollar," while nearby one of his disciples rewrote the Constitution. No sign of the cross for the atheist Rand; no great reverence for the Founders either. Her secular religion, Objectivism, would improve on both. Right.
Rand is similar to Obama in that both are "messianic?" That's just silly. "No great reverence for the Founders?" That's just willful ignorance; Rand consistently praised the Founders for creating the greatest nation on earth. (True, Rand offered some criticisms of the original Constitution, as did a great many of the Founders.)
Even Rand's fair-weather friends often take cheap shots. For example, the following comment from Mike Rosen has absolutely no basis in reality: "There were many challenges in converting the book to a movie. At the top of the list was the task of satisfying the Ayn Rand Institute, the objectivist high priests who keep her flame burning and whose approval was a condition of the movie rights." Rand's estate, not the Institute, sold the movie rights long ago, without any such conditions. (That's unfortunate; had the Institute had any significant say in the movie, it probably would have been a lot better.)
Obviously Rand made some mistakes in her life; which novelist hasn't? She could have a fiery temper (hardly uncommon among creative types, though she could also be sweet as a kitten), and I don't see how her affair with Branden can be regarded as anything other than a gigantic mistake. But some of Rand's critics seem to think that, by recounting only Rand's flaws while ignoring her many virtues, exaggerating those flaws, completely distorting her ideas, and stacking smear upon ugly smear, they can simply ignore what Rand had to say.
Fortunately, Rand's audience has never been those who let other people's smears substitute for their own thinking. So read Atlas Shrugged for yourself, and evaluate its literary merits, and its ideas, by your own reasoned judgment.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Why I'm Not a Libertarian
Given my past activism with the Libertarian Party of Colorado, it is no surprise that lots of people still think of me as a libertarian. At the same time, libertarians think it odd that I disclaim the title. So I thought I'd make another attempt to address the issue; I delivered the following talk May 7 at Liberty Toastmasters.
For more, readers can check out my 2007 article largely on the same topic, which contains links to older writings.
After I delivered my talk, I read Shea Levy's post, "Objectivists are Libertarians." Because that post and my speech appear at roughly the same time, I thought I'd expand my point by briefly responding to Levy's arguments.
Levy argues that, just as it is proper to categorize "Joseph Stalin, Christopher Hitchens, and Ayn Rand" as atheists, despite their vast differences, so it is proper to categorize "John Stossel, Radley Balko, and Ayn Rand" as libertarians.
Levy's argument quickly falls apart when we look at Levy's own "definition" of libertarianism: "the vast majority of activities between consenting adults should be legal and that the current US government acts far out of the bounds of the proper scope of a government."
First, what constitutes "consent?" That very much depends on one's philosophical commitments. Many libertarians argue that "consent" includes things like pirating music, and some hold it includes having sex with children. Throwing together advocates of a Constitutionally limited government that protects individual rights with advocates of copyright violations and child rape is rather less than helpful. Also included in this motley crew, by the way, are neo-Confederates and racist "militia" groups.
Second, defining one's political beliefs as wanting a less-aggressive government makes absolutely no sense. That includes advocates of Constitutionally limited government as well as right-anarchists and left-anarchists. If we can trust the Wikipedia entry on libertarianism, in its origins (as a political term) it derives from anarcho-socialism.
Consider, for instance, this telling quote from Colin Ward: "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."
As I mention in the talk embedded here, and as I have argued previously, libertarianism is fundamentally a reactionary movement, in that it is motivated by an anti-government sentiment.
"Smaller government" simply cannot be a defining characteristic of any valid concept, as it includes radically different political commitments, ranging from anarcho-socialism to anarcho-capitalism to Ronald Reagan. Whereas atheism coherently describes people who disbelieve in a god, the comparable concept for people who disbelieve in government is anarchism. Rand certainly was no anarchist, and neither am I (thought I took the theory quite seriously for several years).
To clarify the point, I am not fundamentally for "smaller government." I am for a government that protects people's rights (in a sense broadly compatible with Lockean property rights). I can imagine a scenario in which I'd positively advocate government consuming the vast majority of national output: say, if a reconstituted Soviet Union joined forces with a newly aggressive China and the Islamist world to wage war on the U.S. The fundamental issue is the government's purpose, not its size.
I think the basic conceptual problem with (American) libertarianism is that it tries to mesh two fundamentally incompatible concepts: anarchism and (Lockean) individual rights. I think that nicely explains why even self-proclaimed libertarians who claim to support government so often get caught up in bizarre movements ranging from neo-Confederacy to music piracy to Islamist apologetics.
Furthermore, I suggest that the better libertarians, such as the scholars at the Cato Institute and the writers at Reason, are only better because they don't really take libertarianism all that seriously. That is, they just fling around this term "libertarian" without pinning down its meaning, or they use the term to mean roughly "what I happen to believe."
I suppose people can just arbitrarily define "libertarian" to mean whatever they want, in the same way I could redefine "theist" to mean "one who rejects the supernatural realm." But I really don't see the point of torturing the language like that or causing such needless confusion.
Let me take a recent, local example. Colorado Representative Amy Stephens has spent much of this legislative session pushing through a politically-controlled health "exchange," to comply with ObamaCare. Stephens is either dishonest or less than fully bright, as she has characterized this government-run monstrosity as "free market." She also dishonestly castigates opponents of the bill as anarchists. Nevertheless, because so many libertarians are in fact avowed anarchists, and because libertarianism implies or at least openly accepts anarchism, Stephens's slurs find some traction. In short, if you lie with dogs, you'll probably get fleas.
So, again, I am not a libertarian.
For more, readers can check out my 2007 article largely on the same topic, which contains links to older writings.
After I delivered my talk, I read Shea Levy's post, "Objectivists are Libertarians." Because that post and my speech appear at roughly the same time, I thought I'd expand my point by briefly responding to Levy's arguments.
Levy argues that, just as it is proper to categorize "Joseph Stalin, Christopher Hitchens, and Ayn Rand" as atheists, despite their vast differences, so it is proper to categorize "John Stossel, Radley Balko, and Ayn Rand" as libertarians.
Levy's argument quickly falls apart when we look at Levy's own "definition" of libertarianism: "the vast majority of activities between consenting adults should be legal and that the current US government acts far out of the bounds of the proper scope of a government."
First, what constitutes "consent?" That very much depends on one's philosophical commitments. Many libertarians argue that "consent" includes things like pirating music, and some hold it includes having sex with children. Throwing together advocates of a Constitutionally limited government that protects individual rights with advocates of copyright violations and child rape is rather less than helpful. Also included in this motley crew, by the way, are neo-Confederates and racist "militia" groups.
Second, defining one's political beliefs as wanting a less-aggressive government makes absolutely no sense. That includes advocates of Constitutionally limited government as well as right-anarchists and left-anarchists. If we can trust the Wikipedia entry on libertarianism, in its origins (as a political term) it derives from anarcho-socialism.
Consider, for instance, this telling quote from Colin Ward: "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."
As I mention in the talk embedded here, and as I have argued previously, libertarianism is fundamentally a reactionary movement, in that it is motivated by an anti-government sentiment.
"Smaller government" simply cannot be a defining characteristic of any valid concept, as it includes radically different political commitments, ranging from anarcho-socialism to anarcho-capitalism to Ronald Reagan. Whereas atheism coherently describes people who disbelieve in a god, the comparable concept for people who disbelieve in government is anarchism. Rand certainly was no anarchist, and neither am I (thought I took the theory quite seriously for several years).
To clarify the point, I am not fundamentally for "smaller government." I am for a government that protects people's rights (in a sense broadly compatible with Lockean property rights). I can imagine a scenario in which I'd positively advocate government consuming the vast majority of national output: say, if a reconstituted Soviet Union joined forces with a newly aggressive China and the Islamist world to wage war on the U.S. The fundamental issue is the government's purpose, not its size.
I think the basic conceptual problem with (American) libertarianism is that it tries to mesh two fundamentally incompatible concepts: anarchism and (Lockean) individual rights. I think that nicely explains why even self-proclaimed libertarians who claim to support government so often get caught up in bizarre movements ranging from neo-Confederacy to music piracy to Islamist apologetics.
Furthermore, I suggest that the better libertarians, such as the scholars at the Cato Institute and the writers at Reason, are only better because they don't really take libertarianism all that seriously. That is, they just fling around this term "libertarian" without pinning down its meaning, or they use the term to mean roughly "what I happen to believe."
I suppose people can just arbitrarily define "libertarian" to mean whatever they want, in the same way I could redefine "theist" to mean "one who rejects the supernatural realm." But I really don't see the point of torturing the language like that or causing such needless confusion.
Let me take a recent, local example. Colorado Representative Amy Stephens has spent much of this legislative session pushing through a politically-controlled health "exchange," to comply with ObamaCare. Stephens is either dishonest or less than fully bright, as she has characterized this government-run monstrosity as "free market." She also dishonestly castigates opponents of the bill as anarchists. Nevertheless, because so many libertarians are in fact avowed anarchists, and because libertarianism implies or at least openly accepts anarchism, Stephens's slurs find some traction. In short, if you lie with dogs, you'll probably get fleas.
So, again, I am not a libertarian.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Arnold Testifies on Campaign Laws
Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado was sued under Colorado's campaign laws -- even after he sought out guidance from the Secretary of State's office.
Arnold makes the shocking, but I think correct, statement, "Under Colorado's campaign finance rules and regulations, the 1960 civil rights movement could not have existed. They would have had to file all sorts of reports, disclosures, identifying individuals who are supporting them. Those individuals certainly would have been subject to retribution, either physically, or financially, or both."
Arnold makes the shocking, but I think correct, statement, "Under Colorado's campaign finance rules and regulations, the 1960 civil rights movement could not have existed. They would have had to file all sorts of reports, disclosures, identifying individuals who are supporting them. Those individuals certainly would have been subject to retribution, either physically, or financially, or both."
Friday, May 6, 2011
CO Campaign Laws Chill Speech
Diana Hsieh, who fought the anti-abortion "Personhood" ballot measures in 2008 and 2010, had to endure the onerous reporting requirements of Colorado's campaign laws -- just so she could spend a few hundred dollars (in 2008) and nearly $3,000 (in 2010).
As she testified at a May 3 meeting held by the Secretary of State, the campaign laws nearly made her give up her cause, and they reduced the amount of speaking she could do. Not only did conforming to the laws eat away at her valuable activism time, but they discouraged her from raising more money to reach more voters with her message. Moreover, the laws put citizen activists at risk of getting sued by opportunistic attack groups. (Note: I worked with Diana on these projects, and in 2010 we each earned money from donors for our work.)
I testified at the same meeting that the campaign laws have prevented me from pursuing certain activist ideas, thereby violating my right of free speech.
See also:
Why Colorado's Campaign Laws Constitute Censorship, a video with more testimony from the May 3 meeting
SOS Looks to Mitigate Burden of Campaign Censorship Laws, my written comments
Diana's written comments
As she testified at a May 3 meeting held by the Secretary of State, the campaign laws nearly made her give up her cause, and they reduced the amount of speaking she could do. Not only did conforming to the laws eat away at her valuable activism time, but they discouraged her from raising more money to reach more voters with her message. Moreover, the laws put citizen activists at risk of getting sued by opportunistic attack groups. (Note: I worked with Diana on these projects, and in 2010 we each earned money from donors for our work.)
I testified at the same meeting that the campaign laws have prevented me from pursuing certain activist ideas, thereby violating my right of free speech.
See also:
Why Colorado's Campaign Laws Constitute Censorship, a video with more testimony from the May 3 meeting
SOS Looks to Mitigate Burden of Campaign Censorship Laws, my written comments
Diana's written comments
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Why Colorado's Campaign Laws Constitute Censorship
In the above video, I argue that Colorado's campaign laws constitute censorship, drawing on a May 3 meeting held by the Colorado Secretary of State. See my May 2 post for more background about the meeting. Following is the transcript of the video.
[From the May 3 meeting:] I say that these rules constitute censorship. Flat-out censorship. It's not the sort of censorship where you're just arresting people for making certain statements; but it's a sort of softer censorship if you will, where the amount of barriers and burdens [are] put into place, pile after pile, one straw after another on the activist's back. Eventually a lot of people just give up, and say, "I'm not going to put myself in a situation where I might have to deal with these onerous burdens.
[Narration recorded May 4:] I'm Ari Armstrong of Free Colorado.
On May 3, 2011, I attended a meeting held by the Colorado Secretary of State on issue-group reporting rules. I want to draw on that meeting to make my case that Colorado's campaign laws constitute censorship.
The first question is whether an ordinary citizen activist can reasonably expect to understand the intricacies of the campaign laws. The answer is no.
Consider an exchange between Jenny Flanagan, Executive Director of Colorado Common Cause, a lead proponent of the campaign laws, and William Hobbs of the Secretary of State's office. The discussion pertains to a proposed rule change.
Neither Flanagan nor Hobbs seems entirely sure of the law's implications.
[Jenny Flanagan] My name is Jenny Flanagan, I'm the Executive Director of Colorado Common Cause. ... We have a long history working on campaign finance reform, and we were one of the lead proponents of Amendment 27, now Article 28 of the [Colorado] Constitution. ... One of my questions, and hopefully you all can clarify for me, this is 4.27 sub (a) which says that "expenditures made prior to reaching the $5,000 threshold are not required to be reported." That's the kind of secret donation that I'm talking about.
[William Hobbs] So right now, up to $200 is a secret donation, not disclosed, and now it would be...
[Flanagan] I'm not sure. And you can clarify, but is it such that once you reach $200 that it is only after the $200 that is required to be disclosed? Or do we treat all donations that are required as subject to disclosure? That was my understanding, so I guess you can clarify that if I'm wrong there.
In fairness, Hobbes seems to have been addressing a hypothetical case, and Flanagan's understanding was correct.
I called the Secretary of State's office May 4 for clarification, and Deputy Public Information Officer Andrew Cole said "it is your responsibility to report everything" once you hit the spending trigger as an issue group.
Still, Flanagan and Hobbs are representatives of the groups that wrote the law and enforce it, and the fact that they seem to have trouble recalling the law's provisions is not very encouraging for the regular citizen activist.
To give you an idea of what citizen activists face before they can even start forming an issue group, I printed out the Secretary of State's "Colorado Campaign and Political Finance Manual."
The entire document is 100 pages long, of which the first 36 consist of the Secretary of State's explanations and references. [See that document online.]
But mastering those pages [the first 36] is not good enough. The document warns: "REMEMBER: You must read Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution; Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) Title 1, Article 45 and the accompanying Rules Concerning Campaign and Political Finance to fully understand Colorado Campaign and Political Finance procedures and requirements."
Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution takes up another 11 pages of the manual that I just showed you. And this is dense, legalistic language. In fact, that article is by itself longer than the entire original U.S. Constitution.
Title 1, Article 45 of the Colorado Revised Statutes takes up another 29 pages of the manual.
Then the Secretary of State's "Rules Concerning Campaign and Political Finance" take up another 22 pages.
The relevant state and federal court decisions further controlling these matters are not even included, and I have no idea how many additional pages they take up if you were to print them out.
Once you master 100 pages of dense legalese, then the real fun begins, because then you get to actually start filing your expenses and contributions as an issue committee. So how does that work out?
My friend and former collaborator Diana Hsieh [see the paper we coauthored] said the following about her experiences in 2008 and then in 2010:
[Diana Hsieh] So I went and I searched online; [it] took me about two hours to find the information even once I knew it was there somewhere. [I] had to go read the law, it was completely incomprehensible, I had no idea what I was supposed to do. But I ended up registering, I ended up filling out the forms. It was like $300 or $250 that I spent, somewhere just slightly above the $200 range [that triggered mandatory reporting]. And wow that was such a huge pain. Because having to fill out -- I mean, here I spent $21 at Staples, and having to get out the receipt, put in the address of Staples, like really, does anybody need to know where I bought my envelopes? ...
[Then in 2010:] And all of a sudden it struck me, and I really think I was kind of blocking it out, "Oh my gosh, I've got all these campaign finance regulations." Because before I didn't have donors, and so it just didn't occur to me, I'm going to have to report all these people who are supporting me. This was not a happy thought. And I did actually seriously consider for a time simply scrapping the whole project. ... I was worried for a couple reasons. One, I just didn't want to go through the burdens of reporting. I thought that was -- I just didn't want to do it. The other reasons I didn't want to do it was, I thought it was invading the privacy of my donors. [The project in question defended the right to get an abortion, and in a segment not included Diana noted that abortion-rights activists might be subject to violence.] ...
I think that I underestimated how difficult it would be to be filing all of these reports this time. Because it had been a pretty simple process, although very frustrating, it had been a pretty simple process last time [in 2008], I didn't realize what it would be like to have rolling contributions and rolling expenditures in and out, and how difficult that would be.
So let me just tell you a little bit about how that process worked. First of all I had to spend hours filling out and faxing paperwork to open up a bank account, which I didn't need otherwise. Also to open up a PayPal account so I could have purely separate finances from my own LLC. Then once contributers began to pay their pledges, I had to compile and submit these reports every two weeks. And notice the deadlines for these reports; I just looked this up today just to be sure. But the period would end, and you would have two to three business days in which to gather up all this data and submit it.
Now, for the first report actually, I completely forgot about it, because I had a septic line backup in the house, and I was traveling to the east coast, and basically my life was a complete disaster at the moment. And I was obliged to file this report, and it just completely slipped my mind. And then when I realized it, like "ohmygosh," I was in this massive panic. "Am I going to have to start paying these $50 a day, per violation fines?" And I wrote in this contrite note of, "Please, look, I had all these horrible things, don't fine me, please please please." Because all of a sudden all my payment for the writing that I had done could just evaporate in these fines. And I just didn't know, what would the reaction of the Secretary of State's office be? [Diana was not fined.] ...
I ended up having to keep two sets of books, because I would track who paid my pledges in my pledge software, I keep track of my finances in Quicken, but you guys required a different kind of timing. And so I had to keep... a second set of books in Excel just to make sure that I could keep track of things. But of course you input the data, and nothing ever works out the first time around, it's like reconciling your bank accounts. And so you have to go through everything two or three times. So every report that was filed every two or three weeks was two or three hours of checking and double checking and fixing, and trying to find people's addresses. And at one point, at 11:30 at night before the deadline, panicking for me to try to find a physical address for Facebook, you know they just don't give out that information all that easily.
So it was just this massive pain. I could have spent that time working on the issue, I could have been writing op-eds, heck I could have been watching a movie with my husband, which would have been much more pleasant, much more enjoyable.
And of course, as I mentioned, every time I filed one of these reports, I was petrified of making a mistake. Those $50 per day per violation fines -- you know, I don't have thousands of dollars that are just sitting in my bank account for this project. That would have eaten into the money that I had earned writing the paper. And that was really horrifying to me.
So basically what happened was, once again, having to file all these reports simply discouraged me from raising more money and spending more money. I mean, I could have asked people, "Hey look, I'd like to do more Facebook ads, would you be willing to contribute to that?" No thank you. It just was not worth getting in that twenty-five bucks, having to go through the effort of reporting that, in order to spend more money.
So I can't give you any numbers. I can't say, "1,200 people would have spoken out on the ballot measure if we didn't have these campaign finance regulations." But I can tell you firsthand, from these two experiences, the chilling effect that these regulations had on my speech.
So what does Colorado Common Cause Suggest?
[Flanagan] Yeah, I heard the testimony, and again I think holding classes, or doing other kinds of education outreach, so that citizens can have the tools necessary to meet the requirements, is a way to address that concern.
"Holding classes?" So now I should have to attend a government-run class just so I can exercise my First Amendment rights? I find that very notion offensive. But what Flanagan does not try to resolve is the enormous time burden placed on citizen activists of learning and implementing all the relevant rules. Attending government-run classes only adds to that burden.
Besides, information the Secretary of State offers might not be enough to keep a citizen activist safe. Consider the following exchange between Flanagan and Secretary of State Scott Gessler:
[Gessler] But at a minimum, there's some uncertainty with the current law and the Sampson case. Which I think in my mind would sort of be vagueness. How do we resolve that?
[Flanagan] You know, I don't have the magic answer for you today, Mr. Secretary, I apologize. I mean, I think some of the other comments that were talked about, the rules should apply to all -- there were some things I actually agreed with. But the [Tenth Circuit] Court wasn't willing to draw the line [regarding the spending trigger for issue group reporting], and I don't know that this office really has the authority to draw the line either. I understand that you have to enforce, and educate the public about what the rules are and how they should be enforced...
We are all subject to the possibilities of being challenged and having things taken to court, and have to deal with that as it comes up. But, for the time, it is the role of this office to inform the public.
Did you get that? Even if a citizen activist learns all the rules, goes to a government-run class, and makes every effort to obey all the rules, the activist might still get sued under these laws.
Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench, who actually was sued under these laws, and who was represented by Gessler prior to his election, responds as follows:
And Ms. Flanagan's advice to people would be, you know what, you can't rely on guidance from the Office of Secretary of State, you just have to run the risk of getting out there, and being sued, by some legal attack group, like Colorado Ethics Watch... Just take the risk, just put yourself out there, just put your livelihood, your good name, your resources, at risk, because you can't rely on the law to mean what it says. I find that advice very troubling. It really does suppress political participation.
The case is clear. Colorado's campaign laws constitute a form of censorship. The only question remaining is this: what are we going to do about it?
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Denver Mayor Race Illustrates Benefits of Approval Voting
As of this writing, the top four candidates in the Denver race for mayor show the following vote totals:
Chris Romer: 28.5%
Michael Hancock: 27.1%
James Mejia: 25.7%
Doug Linkhart: 9.4%
The Denver Post reports, "If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote in the May 3 election, the top two vote-getters advance to a June 7 runoff."
But if you think about it, that's a pretty foolish way to run an election. For example, what if Linkhart's voters prefer Mejia over the other two? Too bad: Mejia is out (assuming the percentages hold). Or what if the voters of either Romer or Hancock far preferred Mejia over the alternative? Again, the outcome will be that a less-favored candidate will win anyway.
In addition, holding a runoff vote costs taxpayers more money (and taxes their patience as well).
The way to solve both problems -- to pick the most-favored candidate and to do it with a single vote -- is to institute approval voting. The basic idea is that voters can cast more than one vote. For instance, you could vote for Romer only, Linkhart and Romer, Romer and Hancock, or whatever other combination of candidates you think you could live with.
As it stands, chances are pretty good that the next Denver mayor will not be the candidate with the most support among the voters, though we'll never really know. Even if the results turn out "right" in this case, inevitably the less-favored candidate will win in certain other races. I can think of lots of good reasons to institute approval voting, and no good reason not to.
Chris Romer: 28.5%
Michael Hancock: 27.1%
James Mejia: 25.7%
Doug Linkhart: 9.4%
The Denver Post reports, "If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote in the May 3 election, the top two vote-getters advance to a June 7 runoff."
But if you think about it, that's a pretty foolish way to run an election. For example, what if Linkhart's voters prefer Mejia over the other two? Too bad: Mejia is out (assuming the percentages hold). Or what if the voters of either Romer or Hancock far preferred Mejia over the alternative? Again, the outcome will be that a less-favored candidate will win anyway.
In addition, holding a runoff vote costs taxpayers more money (and taxes their patience as well).
The way to solve both problems -- to pick the most-favored candidate and to do it with a single vote -- is to institute approval voting. The basic idea is that voters can cast more than one vote. For instance, you could vote for Romer only, Linkhart and Romer, Romer and Hancock, or whatever other combination of candidates you think you could live with.
As it stands, chances are pretty good that the next Denver mayor will not be the candidate with the most support among the voters, though we'll never really know. Even if the results turn out "right" in this case, inevitably the less-favored candidate will win in certain other races. I can think of lots of good reasons to institute approval voting, and no good reason not to.
Monday, May 2, 2011
SOS Looks to Mitigate Burden of Campaign Censorship Laws
As Diana Hsieh reviews, the Colorado Secretary of State currently is evaluating rules pertaining to issue-group reporting requirements under Colorado's campaign censorship laws. See also the Institute for Justice's report on the court case at issue. Following are the comments I've submitted to the Secretary of State.
May 2, 2011
Honorable Scott E. Gessler
Secretary of State of Colorado
1700 Broadway, Suite 250
Denver, CO 80290
Care of Andrea Gyger, andrea[ dot ]gyger[ at ]sos[ dot ]state[ dot ]co[ dot ]us
Re: Ari Armstrong's comments on Proposed Revisions and Amendments to the Secretary of State's 'Rules Concerning Campaign and Political Finance,' 8 C.C.R. 1505-6
Dear Secretary Gessler,
The issue before the Secretary of State is how to "promulgate such rules... as may be necessary to administer and enforce" Article XXVIII of of the Colorado Constitution ("Campaign and Political Finance"), approved as Amendment 27 in 2002 by Colorado voters.
A general evaluation of the broader Constitutional provision lies outside the scope of the Secretary of State's present authority. However, in order to set the context, I will note that I regard the entire Article as a violation of the free speech rights of Coloradans as protected by the First Amendment to the federal Constitution. Despite the Tenth Circuit Court's claim, there can be no "governmental interest" that justifies "abridging the freedom of speech" or "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" when it comes to discussing or advocating political campaigns or ballot measures. Moreover, the measure discourages citizen involvement in the political process, the exact opposite of its stated intent.
Regardless of broader evaluations of Article XXVIII, the Secretary of State has a legal obligation under Section 9 to promulgate legally enforceable rules pertaining to campaign finance.
In the case of Sampson v. Buescher (November 9, 2010), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Article XXVIII as written unduly violates freedoms of speech and association and is therefore in part (federally) unconstitutional. Therefore, the Colorado Secretary of State must issue legally enforceable rules consistent with the Court's ruling.
The Court reviews that, as written, "Colorado law requires that any group of two or more persons that has accepted or made contributions or expenditures exceeding $200 to support or oppose a ballot issue must register as an issue committee and report the names and addresses of anyone who contributes $20 or more."
The Court ruled on a case involving a group that devoted $782.02 to an "anti-annexation effort" by July 13, 2006, and that spent a total of $1,992.37 in cash or in-kind contributions by April, 2007, "of which $1,178.82 went for attorney fees."
The Court finds: "[C]ampaign-disclosure statutes must survive exacting scrutiny. There must be a 'substantial relation' between the requirement and a governmental interest that is sufficiently important to justify the burden on the freedom of association. ... Here, the financial burden of state regulation on Plaintiffs' freedom of association approaches or exceeds the value of their financial contributions to their political effort; and the governmental interest in imposing those regulations is minimal, if not nonexistent, in light of the small size of the contributions. We therefore hold that it was unconstitutional to impose that burden on Plaintiffs. We do not attempt to draw a bright line below which a ballot-issue committee cannot be required to report contributions and expenditures. The case before us is quite unlike ones involving the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on ballot issues presenting 'complex policy proposals.' We say only that Plaintiffs' contributions and expenditures are well below the line."
The implication is clear and straight-forward: the Secretary of State must, by law, promulgate legally enforceable rules setting a "trigger" amount for mandatory reporting under Amendment XXVIII "well above" the amount of the case in question. While the Court offers no exact figure, common sense dictates that a figure of $5,000 is the minimum that could reasonably be considered "well above" the amounts of the case under scrutiny. I believe that a figure of many times that amount would be more consistent with the reasoning of the Court.
Unfortunately, the speech-restriction organizations Colorado Common Cause and Colorado Ethics Watch, in their comments to the Secretary of State dated January 26, 2011, offer a distorted (and frankly self-serving) interpretation of the Court's decision.
Elena Nunez of Colorado Common Cause claims, "In its ruling, the Court only found the requirements too onerous as applied in this particular case. We don't believe that this ruling provides the grounds to weaken the trigger for disclosure more broadly." Nunez advises, "Rather than focus solely on the dollar amount that should trigger disclosure, we urge the Secretary's office to improve its guidance for citizens who will be required to comply with disclosure rules going forward."
Luis Toro of Colorado Ethics Watch takes a similar approach, arguing that the Court's ruling "does not purport to require Colorado to change the threshold at which a group becomes an issue committee subject to reporting requirements."
Nunez and Toro simply ignore the Court's language stating that "a ballot-issue committee" generally cannot be subjected to the reporting requirements unless they spend resources at an amount relative to which the reviewed amounts "are well below."
Furthermore, Nunez's claims that "clearer," newer statutes resolve the problems expressed by the Court's decision do not pass the laugh test. Yet Toro makes a similar claim about C.R.S. 1-40-113(1)(b), which allegedly "is clear and easy to follow and raises none of the concerns expressed in Sampson." (By Toro's own description, the law pertains only to notification of those who get petitions printed, not to anybody else who may want to speak out about a measure.)
As several other comments to the Secretary of State make clear, the campaign rules in fact discourage citizen participation in certain political causes. I add my voice to those who have suffered under the law. In opposing the 2010 "Personhood" measure with Diana Hsieh, I found that our project was significantly hampered by the fact that Diana had to spend many hours complying with the reporting burdens. And that's a project that actually got accomplished despite the reporting requirements; the citizen efforts that were never even launched because of the burdens cannot be known, nor the magnitude of free speech violations calculated. I frankly would not have undertaken the campaign against the "Personhood" measure had Diana not agreed to deal with the onerous bureaucracy of the reporting requirements. My standard course is to simply cut my mind off from any idea that might lead me into the necessity of complying with the regulatory burdens associated with the targeted forms of political speech. Generally I do not even try to develop the ideas and strategies for fighting those political battles that might subject me to the reporting requirements.
At issue is not simply the time required to comply with the reporting requirements, though that cost is substantial. The citizen activist must also bear the emotional burden of constantly fearing that some paperwork error will subject one to expensive and exhausting legal proceedings. Nor do I believe I am alone in finding the prospect of jumping through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops, before I can advocate some political cause with others, to be inherently burdensome.
It is abundantly obvious that the campaign reporting requirements "chill" free speech, in that they discourage it. But to describe this as a "chill" hardly captures the injustice of the requirements. The requirements of Article XXVIII constitute censorship, pure and simple. It is not the censorship of an outright prohibition of some form of speech, but the soft censorship of piling up so many burdens that many simply dare not even try to advocate their views. The results are the same: the law prevents some people from speaking out about causes dear to them.
The notion that cleaner status and rules can overcome the problems expressed in Sampson v. Buescher is absurd. Article XXVIII itself consists of 17 sections, for a total count approaching 7,000 words of dense legalistic language, not counting annotations. Yet, to be safe, the citizen activist must master not only the Constitutional language but all the additional statutes governing campaign finance, in addition to the Secretary of State's rules. Add to that the burden of properly processing and filing all the often-tiny in-kind and cash contributions. Add to that the emotional burdens of risking legal penalties over paperwork errors and struggling to interact with bureaucratic officials.
Far from being "clear and easy to follow," the campaign reporting requirements better resemble a nightmare from the mind of Franz Kafka.
Thankfully, the decision of Sampson v. Buescher, in conjunction with Section 9 of Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution, prompts the Colorado Secretary of State to substantially raise the "trigger" amount for issue-group reporting, thereby giving citizen activists in Colorado some measure of relief.
Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong
May 2, 2011
Honorable Scott E. Gessler
Secretary of State of Colorado
1700 Broadway, Suite 250
Denver, CO 80290
Care of Andrea Gyger, andrea[ dot ]gyger[ at ]sos[ dot ]state[ dot ]co[ dot ]us
Re: Ari Armstrong's comments on Proposed Revisions and Amendments to the Secretary of State's 'Rules Concerning Campaign and Political Finance,' 8 C.C.R. 1505-6
Dear Secretary Gessler,
The issue before the Secretary of State is how to "promulgate such rules... as may be necessary to administer and enforce" Article XXVIII of of the Colorado Constitution ("Campaign and Political Finance"), approved as Amendment 27 in 2002 by Colorado voters.
A general evaluation of the broader Constitutional provision lies outside the scope of the Secretary of State's present authority. However, in order to set the context, I will note that I regard the entire Article as a violation of the free speech rights of Coloradans as protected by the First Amendment to the federal Constitution. Despite the Tenth Circuit Court's claim, there can be no "governmental interest" that justifies "abridging the freedom of speech" or "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" when it comes to discussing or advocating political campaigns or ballot measures. Moreover, the measure discourages citizen involvement in the political process, the exact opposite of its stated intent.
Regardless of broader evaluations of Article XXVIII, the Secretary of State has a legal obligation under Section 9 to promulgate legally enforceable rules pertaining to campaign finance.
In the case of Sampson v. Buescher (November 9, 2010), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Article XXVIII as written unduly violates freedoms of speech and association and is therefore in part (federally) unconstitutional. Therefore, the Colorado Secretary of State must issue legally enforceable rules consistent with the Court's ruling.
The Court reviews that, as written, "Colorado law requires that any group of two or more persons that has accepted or made contributions or expenditures exceeding $200 to support or oppose a ballot issue must register as an issue committee and report the names and addresses of anyone who contributes $20 or more."
The Court ruled on a case involving a group that devoted $782.02 to an "anti-annexation effort" by July 13, 2006, and that spent a total of $1,992.37 in cash or in-kind contributions by April, 2007, "of which $1,178.82 went for attorney fees."
The Court finds: "[C]ampaign-disclosure statutes must survive exacting scrutiny. There must be a 'substantial relation' between the requirement and a governmental interest that is sufficiently important to justify the burden on the freedom of association. ... Here, the financial burden of state regulation on Plaintiffs' freedom of association approaches or exceeds the value of their financial contributions to their political effort; and the governmental interest in imposing those regulations is minimal, if not nonexistent, in light of the small size of the contributions. We therefore hold that it was unconstitutional to impose that burden on Plaintiffs. We do not attempt to draw a bright line below which a ballot-issue committee cannot be required to report contributions and expenditures. The case before us is quite unlike ones involving the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on ballot issues presenting 'complex policy proposals.' We say only that Plaintiffs' contributions and expenditures are well below the line."
The implication is clear and straight-forward: the Secretary of State must, by law, promulgate legally enforceable rules setting a "trigger" amount for mandatory reporting under Amendment XXVIII "well above" the amount of the case in question. While the Court offers no exact figure, common sense dictates that a figure of $5,000 is the minimum that could reasonably be considered "well above" the amounts of the case under scrutiny. I believe that a figure of many times that amount would be more consistent with the reasoning of the Court.
Unfortunately, the speech-restriction organizations Colorado Common Cause and Colorado Ethics Watch, in their comments to the Secretary of State dated January 26, 2011, offer a distorted (and frankly self-serving) interpretation of the Court's decision.
Elena Nunez of Colorado Common Cause claims, "In its ruling, the Court only found the requirements too onerous as applied in this particular case. We don't believe that this ruling provides the grounds to weaken the trigger for disclosure more broadly." Nunez advises, "Rather than focus solely on the dollar amount that should trigger disclosure, we urge the Secretary's office to improve its guidance for citizens who will be required to comply with disclosure rules going forward."
Luis Toro of Colorado Ethics Watch takes a similar approach, arguing that the Court's ruling "does not purport to require Colorado to change the threshold at which a group becomes an issue committee subject to reporting requirements."
Nunez and Toro simply ignore the Court's language stating that "a ballot-issue committee" generally cannot be subjected to the reporting requirements unless they spend resources at an amount relative to which the reviewed amounts "are well below."
Furthermore, Nunez's claims that "clearer," newer statutes resolve the problems expressed by the Court's decision do not pass the laugh test. Yet Toro makes a similar claim about C.R.S. 1-40-113(1)(b), which allegedly "is clear and easy to follow and raises none of the concerns expressed in Sampson." (By Toro's own description, the law pertains only to notification of those who get petitions printed, not to anybody else who may want to speak out about a measure.)
As several other comments to the Secretary of State make clear, the campaign rules in fact discourage citizen participation in certain political causes. I add my voice to those who have suffered under the law. In opposing the 2010 "Personhood" measure with Diana Hsieh, I found that our project was significantly hampered by the fact that Diana had to spend many hours complying with the reporting burdens. And that's a project that actually got accomplished despite the reporting requirements; the citizen efforts that were never even launched because of the burdens cannot be known, nor the magnitude of free speech violations calculated. I frankly would not have undertaken the campaign against the "Personhood" measure had Diana not agreed to deal with the onerous bureaucracy of the reporting requirements. My standard course is to simply cut my mind off from any idea that might lead me into the necessity of complying with the regulatory burdens associated with the targeted forms of political speech. Generally I do not even try to develop the ideas and strategies for fighting those political battles that might subject me to the reporting requirements.
At issue is not simply the time required to comply with the reporting requirements, though that cost is substantial. The citizen activist must also bear the emotional burden of constantly fearing that some paperwork error will subject one to expensive and exhausting legal proceedings. Nor do I believe I am alone in finding the prospect of jumping through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops, before I can advocate some political cause with others, to be inherently burdensome.
It is abundantly obvious that the campaign reporting requirements "chill" free speech, in that they discourage it. But to describe this as a "chill" hardly captures the injustice of the requirements. The requirements of Article XXVIII constitute censorship, pure and simple. It is not the censorship of an outright prohibition of some form of speech, but the soft censorship of piling up so many burdens that many simply dare not even try to advocate their views. The results are the same: the law prevents some people from speaking out about causes dear to them.
The notion that cleaner status and rules can overcome the problems expressed in Sampson v. Buescher is absurd. Article XXVIII itself consists of 17 sections, for a total count approaching 7,000 words of dense legalistic language, not counting annotations. Yet, to be safe, the citizen activist must master not only the Constitutional language but all the additional statutes governing campaign finance, in addition to the Secretary of State's rules. Add to that the burden of properly processing and filing all the often-tiny in-kind and cash contributions. Add to that the emotional burdens of risking legal penalties over paperwork errors and struggling to interact with bureaucratic officials.
Far from being "clear and easy to follow," the campaign reporting requirements better resemble a nightmare from the mind of Franz Kafka.
Thankfully, the decision of Sampson v. Buescher, in conjunction with Section 9 of Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution, prompts the Colorado Secretary of State to substantially raise the "trigger" amount for issue-group reporting, thereby giving citizen activists in Colorado some measure of relief.
Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)