Bell Policy Center in denial

"Restoring fiscal sanity to state government" was the hook for donations to The Bell Policy Center in a solicitation I received from them last week via US mail. That slogan was printed on the envelope and highlighted again in Bell's letter cosigned by former Colorado Supreme Court justice Jean Dubofsky and my onetime state Senate colleague Penfield Tate III. The pitch starts by trumpeting, without specifics, this year's "progressive victories [which] will make change possible for all Coloradans." Presumably this means the state's support for Obama, Udall, and Markey as federal candidates, since Bell then admits "tough lessons [from] the failure of several ballot measures" including the TABOR-busting Amendment 59 -- busted decisively by voters -- as well as the defeat of a sales tax hike under Amendment 51 and an energy tax hike under Amendment 58.

In this context, the letter's first line, "Congratulations on a job well done," has the hollow ring of a surgeon claiming the operation was a success but the patient died. Colorado taxpayers can only hope for more such jobs well done from the spending lobby, after the opposition to Amendment 59 won big despite being outspent something like 50 to 1.

Really the whole letter was a most amusing read to brighten my Sunday amidst the sad reality of Bush making nice with the UAW. The Bell promises all of us who donate (sorry, I won't be one of them) a productive 2009 with "in-depth research and analysis [toward] understanding how Coloradans assess the state's fiscal condition."

Come on, guys, you could get a pretty good idea of that by just thinking with an open mind about what message voters were sending with the rejection of Amendments 51, 58, and 59. Seems to me it was a message for the legislature and governor to make do with existing revenues -- prioritize better and spend smarter -- so that working families can keep scrimping their own recession-stressed budgets without a heavier tax burden.

But then, recession is apparently not on The Bell's radar. "These tough economic times" are referred to in this fund appeal only with relation to Center employees "tightening our belts to ensure that we operate as efficiently as possible." Okay, so far so good -- but neither the substance of the letter nor the content of Bell's website acknowledges that the very same prescription is needed for Colorado's fiscal sanity.

Maximizing revenue, not tighter belts and greater efficiency, seems to be their exclusive focus as far as government is concerned. A search of the website turns up nary a word of analysis on why Amendment 59 was crushed and what that might mean for "sane" policies going forward.

What we have here is a think tank suffering from groupthink -- a shrink in denial.

Ritter's fiscal grade is a D

Bill "Recession" Ritter, as disgusted House Republicans now call Colorado's chief executive, managed only a D in the Cato Institute's fiscal policy report card on the nation's governors for 2008. Chris Edwards of Cato said Ritter's spending record was above average, but his grade was pulled down by two recent attempted tax hikes, the school property tax case now before the state Supreme Court and the energy severance proposal defeated by voters this month.

The complaint by a Ritter spokesman that the study wasn't "neutral or unbiased" loses force in light of the well-mixed partisan standings, including a No. 3 ranking given Gov. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a No. 40 ranking for Gov. Butch Otter, R-ID. Ritter stood 26th out of 46 governors ranked.

A partial list of rankings is here. News story from the Rocky is here. This link shows the full study.

Fairness? Just the opposite

Obama admits that raising taxes decreases revenue. He does not hide that his goal in increasing taxes on individuals and small business owners who qualify for his tax hike is emphatically not to increase tax revenue. Because a "single mom" gets taxed at a higher rate than "her boss's investments," Obama is willing to sacrifice necessary revenue in the service of what he defines as "fairness." But how is it "fair" to tax the boss's money at the same rate as the "single mom's" (or more likely, a higher rate) when the money is first earned, and then not only tax it again, but raise the second tax on it - merely because it is invested? Don't we want to encourage investment in American companies?

How is it "fair" to deprive the country of essential tax revenue needed to decrease the deficit and run all our bloated government programs (programs that only McCain is willing to reform)? Don't we want the deficit to shrink instead of grow?

And how is it "fair" to the "single mom" who relies on her job to care for her family's needs to jeopardize her employment by increasing the tax burden on her boss (who very well may be a "single mom," too)?

According to Obama, wanting to keep the money you earn (and invest it and even decide for yourself which non-profit gets your donations) is what he calls, "selfish," and the most recent figure for who will get taxed under his plan has changed to people making more than $120,000.

Obama even believes that a good way to "spread the wealth around" is to take your money and give checks to people who don't pay taxes - more than 40% of the people getting Obama's "tax relief" money pay no federal taxes at all. That's not "fair," that's "welfare" and it traps people in poverty.

This isn't "restoring fairness to the tax code." This is creating the appearance of fairness in the tax code. But it isn't honest and it isn't fair. It's class warfare - divisive and polarizing. What happened to the Obama of, "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America" fame?

I guess he's the same Obama that followed, "people don't expect government to solve all their problems" with "But..."

Dr. Pamela Zuker received her Ph.D. in Human Development and Psychology from the University of Chicago where she performed research at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). She also holds degrees in Anthropology and Clinical Psychology, and practiced marriage, child, and family therapy before focusing on positive psychology. Her current research is on the role of meaning in adult life. She lives in the Roaring Fork Valley with her husband and two children.

Face it, FasTracks is a failure

RTD presents five FasTracks options to the public. All are permutations of the original plan, ranging from shortened lines and curtailed service, to the full system. Mentioned with muted voices are possibilities of a 2034 completion date, and the 67% tax increase approved in 2004 becoming a 116.67% increase. More federal grants will be requested. This would also fall short, even in a mild recession.

The original 0.6% tax thirty years ago (!) was authorized with the stipulation of providing rail. None was built. Recognize that sales tax increases hurt business. Taking billions out of the economy is recessionary.

The project is currently $3.2 billion over budget, with $2.8 billion tax revenue shortfall anticipated. There’s the matter of each community being assessed 2% of the cost. Most communities have no idea where this is coming from. Some say, “in-kind services.” Mysteriously, this recently became 2-1/2%. Look for a local tax increase. The Federal share could build all the highways we need.

The economic downturn and rising materials costs are blamed. Many other major projects are progressing. There was intentional low-balling and ignoring of associated items, to make the project more attractive. Add a generous serving of incompetence.

Continuation of these rail options is a distraction from proven transportation solutions. Original RTD and Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) studies ranked rail as less efficient than bus rapid transit (BRT), in terms of speed, frequency, flexibility, capital cost, and operating expenses. All recent US General Accounting Office (GAO) Reports to Congress reinforce this. Rail projects across the country are financial disasters with declining ridership. Only one city, New York, has a rail system that carries as much as one freeway lane.

FasTracks was conceived as a response to traffic congestion. DRCOG forecast a negligible 0.43% reduction by the target year, with consultants predicting zero effect. Note that transit oriented development (TOD), catchwords for liberal urban planners, invariably causes sub-regional traffic congestion. Recommendations are made for nearly 30 times the typical suburban density, requiring high rise buildings. Suggestions are made for forcing people to use rail and live in TODs.

Much of the impetus for the project comes from land speculators who profit by obtaining local council high density approvals. Eminent domain abuses are inflaming the public.

Proponents admit that the project is a fiasco, progressing because of voter approval. Voters were given the choice between a rail project, or no project. The ballot offered no choices or comparisons of proven alternate modes. Voters were asked to choose the most costly project in Colorado’s history on the basis of feel-good slogans. Public comment is limited to minutiae… bicycles on trains, toilets in stations…with basics avoided.

Why continue the fiasco? RTD recently let a $184 million no-bid contract, after learning that the contractor has been involved in massive bribery scandals. Audit reveals their $2.3 billion slush-fund for “questionable transactions.” $543,000 in political contributions were made by contract recipients. RTD's manager has an annual half-million package, and his city councilor wife is involved in TOD approvals. It’s called wiring contracts by “pay-to-play” manipulators. Firms making six-digit contributions expect, and receive, contracts.

Existing Denver rail runs at 10% of capacity, as compared to nearly 40% nationally, and with many riding because of curtailed bus service. FasTracks will increase air pollution and create 138 grade crossings and 2,000 dead ends, seriously hampering emergency vehicle response.

This project is a dog and should be repealed.

America at the tipping point

Today, Daniel Henninger has a brilliant piece in the Wall Street Journal that lays bare the true significance of an Obama victory. Rather than being representative of a repudiation of "the last eight years", a victory for Obama will usher in a new and philosophically revolutionary change in the basic tenets of both the American economy and society. An Obama administration -- aided with huge Democratic majorities in the House and Senate -- will not be a "one-off" example of an over-reaction to the financial crisis that demands an immediate (but temporary) change in direction to right the ship.Rather, as Henninger so eloquently puts it, with this election the U.S. is at a "philosophical tipping point". This is spot on, and echoes the theme of many of my posts for the past several months. America is about to take a sharp 90 degree left turn, away from our history of free-market capitalism based on a risk/reward calculus, and toward a model of state-controlled system based on a no-risk/high security formula. It's a fundamental shift, as Henninger states:

The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, "progressive" Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its "social market economy." Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create "wealth" so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.

This move toward "welfare capitalism" is exactly where Obama will take us over the next four years. And it is a tipping point because it is largely irreversible; the Great Society has now been with us for over 40 years, and its core elements -- Medicare and Medicaid -- are programs that make up a huge percentage of our entitlement spending. It is easy to giveth -- but it is much harder politically to "taketh away".  This is the issue we will face with Obama -- who plans an historic expansion of public-funded healthcare, energy development and welfare programs. As I've written previously, this will result not just in new taxes, but in the growth of a huge and growing dependent class that lives off government but does nothing to help fund it.The impact of this will be to move America back in the pack, to the economic alsorans of France, and Germany. As Henninger again writes:

Now comes Barack Obama, standing at the head of a progressive Democratic Party, his right hand rising to say, "Mothers, don't let your babies grow up to be for-profit cowboys. It's time to spread the wealth around."What this implies, undeniably, is that the United States would move away from running with the high GDP, high-growth nations rising today as economic and political powers and move over to retire with the low-growth economies we displaced -- old Europe.As noted in a 2006 World Bank report, spending in Europe on social-protection programs averages 19% of GDP (85% of it on social insurance programs), compared to 9% of GDP in the U.S. The Obama proposals send the U.S. inexorably and permanently toward European levels of social protection. This isn't an "agenda." It's a final temptation.

A temptation to remake America in the model of the "progressives left" -- which sees capitalism as a model that fundamentally offends them. It offends the notion that America should be about equality of outcome, not opportunity. At the heart of this is a super-charged version of those who believe that "self-esteem" matters more than keeping score, and the idea that some will win while others lose is not acceptable. Never mind that in our economy, those who win do so not because of some hereditary right that is baked in as a birthright, but rather because of their drive to succeed. The left wants to discount the winners so as not to offend those who are less able (or willing) to succeed. This is at the core of the progressive movement: don't brag, walk softly, don't make anyone else feel badly and -- most importantly -- spread your wealth around so as not to make anyone feel inferior.

What this ignores, of course, is that human nature desires independence and self-sufficiency, not dependence on others. Those who actively support this kind of system are the progressive intellectuals who live in a world of theory, rich liberals who feel guilty about their success, and students whose brains have been scrambled by the left-wing politics of the universities. But the vast middle -- who will vote for Obama on November 4 because they have been hoodwinked into thinking that he is more Bill Clinton than Jacques Chirac -- don't want a handout. They want opportunity. And opportunity is not granted by a statist model of economics, but rather by life-giving tax cuts and a light regulatory burden that will ignite the economy and create new jobs. That's the right tonic for America and those who have too little -- not a government handout in the form of a cash payment that serves only to affirm their lower lot in life.

But this is not Obama's view of the world. And if he wins on Tuesday, we will see America make a choice that will fundamentally alter the philosophical underpinnings of our great capitalist democracy.

It will be a choice we will long remember-- and long regret.