The Bush factor looms large

The campaign to elect the 44^th President of the United States has been dominated by the administration of the 43rd, George W. Bush, as Sen. Barack Obama speaks as if he’s running against him and Sen. John McCain spares no effort to distinguish himself from Bush. This is not surprising, considering that most public opinion polls report President Bush’s popularity at about 35 percent (although more than double Congress’s rating of 16 percent). Some of Bush’s unpopularity is understandable, given the great length of our Iraq commitment and the low state of the economy.

Bush adopted the right counterinsurgency strategy too late for many people and let Democrats get away with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac home mortgage shenanigans for so long that he is actually getting stuck with the blame.

But as important as these events are, they pale into insignificance before the Democrat/media demonization of the Bush administration since 2001. Bush attempted to bring to his office the bipartisan approach that worked so well when he was governor of Texas, but his opposition would have none of it.

The left wingers were never content with merely criticizing the President. The more extreme of them made him out to be Hitler and the only slightly less extreme drew parallels between our treatment of prisoners of war and the barbarities of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. This poisoning of the political dialogue has made fair-minded appraisal practically impossible.

The widespread public antipathy to Bush reminds me of a relationship gone sour. Unhappiness with one person sometimes is followed by a new relationship "on the rebound" with someone else, who looks good for no other reasons than he or she is not the rejected one. Such an unhappy person sees no good in the former loved one and nothing bad in the new object of affection.

It literally makes no sense for people who approved of Bush for his strong defense of the country and his low-taxing policy contribution to a growing economy to replace him with a candidate who fails to grasp the fundamentals of national security and will make our economic problems even worse with his "soak the rich" and "share the wealth" policies.

Add to this irrational phenomenon the national media’s constant drumbeat for Obama and, not surprisingly, we have the spectacle of a virtually unknown, untried and untested junior senator with questionable associates and rhetorical ambiguity vaulting toward victory in his quest for the Presidency.

Perhaps as important as events and defamation of–and overreaction to–the Bush administration is the faux sophistication that characterizes what writer David Brooks once described as the "Bobo" phenomenon. "Bobo" is a combination of Bohemian and bourgeois, that is, of a college-influenced trendiness that is charmed by novelty and unconventionality and animated by an attachment to moneymaking arts.

These urban professionals believe they are "beyond partisanship" but actually are more deeply immersed in it than the alleged rural yokels who they see as clinging to God and guns and feeling hostile to foreigners. Even age and experience do not seem to be enough to shake off the debilitating effects of this adolescent angst that never moves beyond personal outrage and snobbery.

These hipsters are gaga over Obama because he is, as the smooth-talking, "historic" candidate for President, just too cool to pass up, never mind that his ill-conceived foreign and defense policies threaten their safety as much as anyone else's, not to mention that his confiscatory tax and spend policies will squelch their enterprises no less than those of less hip entrepreneurs.

What our country needs are more people who appreciate the sacrifices of our best citizens and less who equate patriotism with the Michael Moore attitude that seems to be, "We had to destroy the country in order to save it." One can only hope that our truly "best and brightest" command a majority in this election.

Lies only prove worth of 47 & 49

Politicians and campaigns are masters of "spin" – selectively presenting facts in a way that leads the target audience to believe what the spin doctors want them to believe. Like it or not, spin is unavoidable because everyone has a unique perspective, formed by their own experiences and beliefs.

But there's spin, and then there are lies — outright, premeditated, willful lies that have no basis whatsoever in truth.

That's the campaign strategy now being employed by labor union bosses who are, ironically, fighting against the rights of workers by opposing Amendments 47 and 49.

Amendment 47 (also called "right to work") simply guarantees that an employee cannot be required to join a union or pay union dues in order to get or keep a job. It neither encourages nor discourages union membership, but simply protects the right of every working man and woman to make that choice without coercion from labor union bosses or pressure from management.

Those principles defend freedom for all workers, plain and simple. Amendment 49 ("ethical standards") prohibits state and local governments from intercepting a worker's paycheck to collect dues or contributions for unions, lobbyists or any other special interest. It simply requires all interest groups to ask supporters directly for their contribution, rather than use government payroll systems as their collection agency. Groups from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club rely on voluntary contributions, so why can't labor unions and other special interests.

To hear the outrageous lies of labor union bosses, you'd think these amendments would catapult Colorado back to the days of dirt roads, oil lanterns and outhouses.

An unbelievable commercial paid for by Protect Colorado's Future shows a fireman claiming these amendments would "keep (public workers) from speaking out on public safety" and "silence the voice of firefighters, teachers and nurses."

Strangely, they never identify the language that repeals the First Amendment, but maybe union lawyers have special glasses that reveal the super-secret code when viewed in black light.

Another hyperventilation by the same disreputable outfit warns that these amendments "put Colorado's economy at risk" and suggests that passing them would "let special interests do to Colorado what they did to Wall Street."

The only thing these amendments put "at risk" are the cushy accommodations reserved for labor bosses and their leverage to crack heads of workers who don't join the union.

Then there's the whopper by the "Coloradans for Middle Class Relief" that claims "a few rich owners" – "Big Bad Wolf" was already taken — want to pass these amendments so they can "cut wages and reduce health care for their employees."

What stops those greedy owners from treating their employees like indentured servants today? The good old profit motive, of course. It's tough to sell goods and services without productive, properly compensated employees.

The Denver Post called the union attacks dishonest, noting that Amendment 47 "does not in any way prevent unions from organizing and collecting dues from willing employees." The Post also pointed out that the firefighter in the commercial works in a department where union membership is voluntary.

Why then are unions crying wolf and destroying what remains of their own tattered credibility?` `

Because when workers are allowed to choose for themselves, 92% of private sector workers and 64% of government workers decide against union membership.

As this campaign demonstrates, union leaders don't give a darn about protecting the little guy. They want to force the little guy to pay union dues to enhance their own political power, and they are more than willing to play dirty.

Mark Hillman served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

Initiatives do taxpayers few favors

Contrary to popular belief, the citizen initiative process is not inherently - or even incidentally - conservative. Like government, the initiative is merely a reflection of the attitudes and principles of the people. Today, the people are not conservative - skeptical, irascible or cynical, perhaps, but not conservative. This year's ballot issues in Colorado remind one of Frederic Bastiat's warning: "Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else."

Long ago when the populace did not expect much from government, government's ineptitude caused fewer problems. Now, as more people expect government to do more, government's "doing" constantly causes newer, bigger problems to replace the older, smaller ones it set out to solve.

One day, people will surely recognize that, as P.J. O'Rourke says, "giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

Then, perhaps, they will finally rise up and say to their elected officials - of both parties: "I accept that we will always have problems and inequality, with or without government, but because you take my hard-earned money and squander it on bridges to nowhere and feckless financial bailouts, I prefer to keep my paycheck and cut yours."

Today, voters are more likely to use the initiative process to constrain and burden each other than to limit government.

In Colorado, the last initiative that clearly protected the rights of the people and constrained government was the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, passed in 1992. Like it or not, TABOR undeniably shifted power to the people by giving them a right to vote on tax increases and away from government by constraining its ability to spend.

In the 16 years since, most enacted initiatives have made government bigger, increased the burden on taxpayers, and reduced the freedoms of the people.

Two initiatives on this year's ballot, Amendments 51 and 58, would increase state government spending by more than $500 million a year and lock in existing government spending on another $500 million.

Amendment 51 would increase the state sales tax to provide a new guaranteed entitlement at taxpayer expense for the developmentally disabled. Moreover, it would require that state government spend these new funds, plus all money currently budgeted for the developmentally disabled, on these programs and nothing else in the future.

A few years back we were told that state government's budget crisis was the product of conflicting inflexible spending mandates. Apparently, advocates of Amendment 51 weren't paying attention, because this is another inflexible spending mandate.

Perhaps more should be spent on programs for the developmentally disabled. If so, it should be up to the legislature to prioritize and reduce spending on less worthwhile programs.

Next, there's Amendment 58 which would increase energy taxes by $321 million a year to pay, mostly, for Gov. Ritter's new college scholarship program. While this tax will be collected by oil and gas companies, anyone who understands Economics 101 knows that corporations have no choice but to pass along new taxes to consumers.

Finally, there's Referendum O which offers a glimmer of hope for fewer such shenanigans in the future. Colorado's constitution looks more like a phone book than a simple statement of principle. Ref O increases the amount of signatures needed for a constitutional amendment and requires those signatures to come from all seven congressional districts.

To encourage amendments to statutes instead, Ref O would allow more time to collect signatures and prohibit the legislature from amending citizen initiatives for five years, except with a two-thirds vote.

Though the initiative process provides a necessary check on recalcitrant government, it is all too susceptible to those who simply want more from government but want someone else to pay for it.

Editor's Note: Referendum O is something on which reasonable people can differ. Our voter guide on this site recommends a no vote, contrary to Sen. Hillman's recommendation above. My comments on Head On TV in opposition to Ref O are here.

Bottom line: No on 59

(Source: StrikeABetterBalance.com) Amendment 59 isn't about education funding, it's an attack on TABOR. The biggest tax increase in Colorado history is likely to result. Voters need to know this. Organizations that want more taxes are outspending taxpayer advocates by 200-to-1. The only hope is getting the word out through you. Please let your friends, family and colleagues know that you oppose Amendment 59 and ask them to vote against it. The reasons are simple:

** Citizens should not throw away the controls that they put on government.

** Citizens should make politicians come to them with specific proposals, not just give politicians a blank check.

** Citizens need the $600 to $800 per family in TABOR refunds that were returned each year when there were surplus tax collections, and which will likely resume in the next decade.

** Amendment 59 is not designed to save money for a real rainy day fund, nor will it solve a constitutional knot.

** Here are more specifics:

59 is unreasonable

Don’t be fooled by the sales job that says this is about education funding. It’s much, much bigger than that!

59 asks the taxpayers to forfeit all future TABOR tax refunds — forever. There is no way to estimate how much tax money this will amount to. It is not reasonable to ask the voters to sign a blank check made out to the state.

The people backing this measure should be honest and clear about the issue, instead of trying to distract you from hearing the real debate about its full impact.

59 is not fair

Every family lives on a budget. Businesses, charities and churches must also. The constitutional constraint that placed an upper limit on government revenues and spending was a good idea. It would not be fair for the state government to be the only organization without a budget constraint.

It’s good that we vote on tax rates, but that citizen’s right is very weak without a budget limit to protect us.

59 looks out for government, not you

It costs a lot to fill up at the gas pump these days. Grocery and home energy prices are climbing. A tax hike is a pay cut and families can’t afford to be burdened with a higher cost of government.

59 is premature

Referendum C is just over half done. It still has another two years to go. Forecasters don’t think that we will get any surplus returned until two years after Ref C ends. Do you know what the economy will look like in five or six years? The state government?

The people who supported Ref C said that you would have to give up $3.7 Billion, but now we know it will be over $6 Billion. With this much new tax revenue pouring into state coffers on top of the Amendment 23 education increases, it's unwise to claim that education needs more now.

59 is unnecessary

Ref C increased the government’s tax base. On a per capita basis, it will cost a family of four an additional $1,100 or more, every year forever-- almost twice what we were told it would be.

The proponents say 59 creates a savings account for education. But any meaningful “rainy day fund” needs to discuss all the needs of the state, including transportation and other programs.

Proponents claim 59 is needed to untangle a "fiscal knot" in the state constitution created by Amendment 23. But the increases mandated by 23 will be completed next year.

BOTTOM LINE: NO ON 59

For more information contact Strike a Better Balance.

Call Penn Pfiffner at 303-233-7731 or Aimee Rathburn at 303-795-1772

Or visit www.StrikeABetterBalance.com

Schools money-hungry & thin-skinned

Editor: Conservative gadfly Tom Graham of Arvada scored a media coup with his satirical "why vote yes" entry in the Jefferson County election mailer giving arguments for and against a nearly $1 billion education proposal. The kerfuffle was big news in the Denver Post this week, and the Rocky did a similar story. Here is Graham's report on the aftermath. ================================

GULLIVER AMONG THE EDUCRATS By Tom Graham

The campaign supporting 3A and 3B, the big tax and bond package, issued a press release, condemning me for submitting a “pro” statement for the election notice. I was advised that Citizens for Jeffco Schools had already submitted a statement and mine wasn’t needed.

The district feels that the election notice process is their property, not a legal public right, unless someone mirrors their agenda. Districts use strategies such as having staff write both the pro and con sides of an issue. Let someone disagree and a storm breaks loose. Now there’s a movement to change the election notice law to hide their true agenda. I did not imply that I was speaking for the district, and my statements are factual, except for those that are opinion.

The district superintendent stated to the Denver Post, “We did edit out the personal attacks on some of our citizens.” These were called “offensive” in their press release. Evidently they weren’t offensive enough to keep the district from placing them in the Post, with ten times as many readers. These two horrible “attacks,” were a compliment, and a reference to an Obama slogan.

I’ve received 13 media contacts and a number of compliments, some from political leaders, plus one threat. Speaking of attacks, a friend who had no knowledge of the notice, was attacked in a flood of e-mails for merely being with me when I submitted it.

The notice is a forum available to the fixed income folks to oppose repeated tax increases. They have no money for a campaign. One of the district’s political action committees, Citizens for Jeffco Schools, spent hundreds of thousands, contributed by 294 donors. Thirteen donors contributed $5,000 or more each, with three giving a total of $95,000.

These ballots are designed to convince uninformed voters to approve a self-serving agenda. Note the overblown non-teaching segment of their budget, dismal student performance, and teacher union domination. 3A asks for a mill levy override almost double that of the next highest in the state. 3B is slightly less than the state’s highest, Douglas County’s.

A debt service of $754 million, plus a 4.4 mill rate increase, adds up to an additional $103 million looting of the public pocketbook next year, increasing each year, with no sunset provision. Their press release states, “…many Jeffco seniors will actually see a reduction in their school property tax even if 3A passes because of the Homestead Exemption.” This falsely implies a connection between the tax and the exemption.

They state, “A yes vote on 3A/3B will keep our property values strong….” As anyone involved in real estate knows, the opposite is true. Perpetual tax increases price properties and buyers out of the market. Where’s the apology for these misrepresentations?

These ballots are so preposterous that they lend themselves to satire. If anyone over at the district was sophisticated enough to have read Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” they might have been amused, rather than so uptight.

Email Tom Graham at coloradothomas@aol.com.