Support tax-funded schools? Then donate your own money.

The Rocky Mountain News published my letter to the editor last week:

Amendment 59 backers should send refunds to schools

Let the “begathon” begin! That’s what educators would need to raise school funding because Amendment 59 failed, said Colorado Association of School Boards director Jane Urschel (“Despite defeat, Ritter aims for budget fix,” Nov. 6).

But fundraising should be easy – if 59′s supporters simply put their money where their vote is. Since 59 failed, taxpayers will receive a refund when the state collects excess taxes. Why not donate it to schools?

Amendment 59 would have sent about $50 million in annual tax surpluses to government schools. Since almost a million Coloradans voted for it, that’s a $50 donation each. As a tax-deductible donation, it’s even less. Just forgo dinner and a movie one weekend.

Surely voters who want government to spend their own tax refund – and everyone else’s – on government schools would donate voluntarily, right? Or would they prefer to support a school of their choice, a scholarship fund, or other causes they deem worthwhile?

In a previous essay I addressed a common argument against the above point of view:

Another common argument in support of [taxing people to pay for schools] is that “we all benefit from it.”… In any case, just because you benefit from something does not mean you must pay for it.  We benefit if others have food, shelter, clothing, and good hygiene, but this doesn’t mean government should force us to buy food, shelter, clothing, and soap for others.

(What does this have to do with Barbara Streisand?  She supports tax-funded schools. (Photo credit.))

The Road to Serfdom: Like Catching Wild Pigs

This parable is does an excellent job explaining how the incrimental growth of seemingly benevolent government programs can result in taking away our freedom.

[A student asks a professor...], ‘Do you know how to catch wild pigs?’ The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. ‘You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms — just a little at a time.

Paul Hsieh linked to this parable when discussing Obama’s health care plan.  More on The Road to Serfdom here.

In Defense of the Electoral College

It’s a good a time as any to bring up this subject. John Samples at the Cato Institute argues for the Electoral College in an essay from the 2000 election.  Selections:

James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these twofold divisions — the separation of powers and federalism — provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

Read the rest here.

Practical, political, and moral reasons not to vote

Wendy McElroy presents some food for thought on principled non-voting in a recent speech.   I think her ideas are worth considering, but Bill Bradford’s rebuttal (not to this speech, but to an article of McElroy’s) is also worth reading for an opposing perspective.  Here are some excerpts:

But what if the ballot is just one more government form to be filled out and filed. What if the process itself is nothing more than a ritual designed to give you a feeling of control over your life, and elections are what they give you instead of real change? …

Tonight I’m addressing the specific act of voting that involves giving your personal sanction – usually by pulling a lever or marking a ballot. I’m talking about giving your personal sanction to a candidate in order to assist that candidate into a position of power over the lives of others – a position like senator or president. …

Politically speaking, I believe your consent and the right to withhold it is the most important thing that an individual can possess. Quite apart from the voting issue, as a larger statement, your consent is the most politically powerful thing you own. …

I want to pause … to look at a common pro-voting argument that makes no sense to me. And, by the way, it would make no sense even if I believed in voting.

This particular argument derides non-voters – as most of the arguments do – but it also is vaguely threatening. It is: “if you don’t care enough to vote, then you have no right to criticize the outcome.” In other words, if you don’t vote, you lose your voice – or at least you lose the right to voice specific criticism of the government that emerges.

I think the opposite is true. Those who vote, those who play the election game, have implicitly agreed to the rules and they are the ones who have no right to complain about an outcome they don’t like. It is non-voters who say “no” to the game and reject the rules who have a moral right to complain about outcomes.

Imagine a comparable situation: you are urged to play Russian roulette – a form in which a 2nd person controls the gun. You say “hell, yes!” At that point, with the act of saying “yes”, you have the lost moral right to complain about whatever happens when the trigger is pulled. Why? Because you agreed to the rules, you said “yes” to the rules. If you say “no” at the outset, however, then when the gun is fired, you have a right to scream bloody murder. …

Capitalism and Socialism: Who Owns You?

From last week’s Daily Camera Editorial Advisory Board:

The question: “Recent debate on economics and politics has been framing recent events in terms of socialism and capitalism. Is this warranted or a sign of hyperbolic rhetoric?”  My response:

Debating political issues in terms of socialism and capitalism helps address a fundamental question: Who owns you? Who has a claim on your time and the products of your physical and mental efforts?

Under capitalism, you do. Consenting adults have the right to voluntarily associate with each other — in personal relationships or for-profit and non-profit ventures. Others have no right to interfere by mandating or prohibiting such relationships. The purpose of government is to protect our individual rights to freely cooperate and pursue our values.

Under socialism, everyone else owns a piece of you. They use the political process to stake a claim on your time, life, and property, whether or not you consent. In this sense, Socialism is anti-social. Under socialism, you are a means to other people’s ends.

Mandatory voting is immoral

Last week my thoughts on third parties and mandatory voting were published in the Boulder Daily Camera:

No one likes to hold their nose and vote for a candidate they perceive as the “lesser of two evils.”  But voting for your favorite minor-party candidate can help elect the “greater of two evils.” The preferential voting systems mentioned above could remedy this.  Another benefit is that if minor parties had a chance to win, media gatekeepers would report on them more.  This would help publicize worthwhile policy proposals that major parties don’t mention.

But don’t expect elected officials to support any such change. They support self-serving campaign finance laws and ballot access regulations that protect incumbents and the two major parties at the expense of minor-party candidates.

In any case, it’s wrong to claim, as some do, that voting should be mandatory or that it’s a “civic duty.” Our only obligations as citizens is to abstain from violating the rights of others.

To vote is to express a political opinion or preference.  Just as government should not prohibit such expression, nor should government mandate it.  Who benefits when you’re forced to express a preference for a politician you consider to be “the lesser of two evils?” The politician, of course.  Votes signal approval, and government should not force citizens to express approval for ideas or candidates they dislike.

I credit this perspective on mandatory voting to Ayn Rand, who wrote in a letter dated February 21 1950:

A proposal to introduce compulsory voting is worse than mere looting of material property. Such a proposal establishes the principle that the government has the right to use compulsion against the human mind and to force an expression of political opinion from men who do not choose to express it.

Colorado Amendment 59: a deceptive tax hike

The Denver Post posted my letter on-line a couple weeks ago:

Amendment 59 Raises Taxes

Re: “SAFE gets Colorado back on track,” Sept. 25 Gail Schoettler column.

Amendment 59 is based on deception, and former Colorado State Treasurer Gail Schoettler perpetuates this deceit.

Amendment 59 would raise your taxes. Schoettler denies this, saying that “Amendment 59 will ensure that your tax rates will stay exactly the same as they are now.”

But Amendment 59 would raise taxes without raising tax rates. The Colorado Constitution guarantees taxpayers a refund when the state collects excess taxes. Amendment 59 would force us to donate this refund to a so-called “Savings Account for Education.” That’s a tax increase. Ms. Schoettler’s mentioning constant tax rates is misleading.

A second deceit is that Amendment 59 is a “Savings Account for Education.” There’s a difference between education and government-funded schools. Just Google “college illiteracy.” Further, Schoettler writes that 59 “frees up money for critical things our citizens need.” That is, not schools. If you want to spend your own money on education not favored by politicians, tough luck. To Schoettler, the needs you want to finance with your own money are irrelevant.

Amendment 59 uses the “for the kids” sales pitch to give politicians a blank check from your bank account to spend your money on whatever they please.

Ballot Issue 1B: Vote “no” and donate $43

The Big Charity lobby for government-funded charities is at it again.  They want to use the political process as a fundraising mechanism.  This time it’s an article in the Boulder Daily Camera.  All but one of the authors and co-signers represent organizations that have received thousands of dollars in tax revenue from the “Worthy Cause” tax they support.

Again they use shallow logic: They regard some non-profits as advancing a good cause (which I do not dispute), therefore it’s OK for government to force everyone to fund it.  Something’s missing here.  Namely, respect, tolerance and property rights.  Who are these people to tell Boulder County Citizens what causes are worthy, and to make it a crime for them not to donate to it?

Supporters of the tax claim that the non-profits couldn’t raise the money without it.  But what if, instead of voting for 1B, the majority required to approve it donated their own money?

This year’s Boulder County Budget includes $3.5 million in the “Worthy Cause Fund.”   Assuming the same voter turnout as the 2004 election, 1B needs about 80,000 votes to pass.  That’s a $43 donation per “Yes” vote.  And it’s tax-deductible, so it’s more like $30.

Are we so two-faced in the voting booth?  Would a majority vote to force others to donate to charities that they wouldn’t support themselves?  Is that the Boulder County you want?

To donate to these charities on your own, I’ve made it easy.  Click here.  It lists the special interests who are funding the Ballot Issue 1B campaign.  As I’ve mentioned, they just happen to be the ones who have received the tax revenue.  So for them it’s an investment.  (See, “investment” = tax, just as politicians say.)  Anyway, the page contains a dozen links to donation pages for these organizations.

Hank Brown on Colorado Amendment 49

Here are a couple clips of former University of Colorado president Hank Brown talking about Colorado Amendment 49 on 850 KOA’s Mike Rosen Show.  If you prefer that sock puppets explain it, click here.

http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3247397568-audio-player.swf?audioUrl=http://www.bendegrow.com/Brown5-paying.mp3

http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3247397568-audio-player.swf?audioUrl=http://www.bendegrow.com/Brown6-negativenonsense.mp3

(via Mount Virtus.)

Count on taxes rising if Amendment 59 passes

The Rocky Mountain News printed my letter to the editor earlier this week about Colorado Amendment 59.  Click here for the on-line version with reader comments.  A scan of the print version is here.

A DIFFERING VIEW: Count on taxes rising if Amendment 59 passes

The Rocky should regret endorsing the deceptive Amendment 59 (editorial, Sept. 19).

Like other proponents, the Rocky claims that 59 “is not a tax hike.” The Rocky continues, “it would eliminate rebates that taxpayers otherwise would receive whenever a [Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] surplus occurs.”

How is this not a tax hike? The amendment’s supporters claim the money that would otherwise go to rebates would fund “education.” Yet the Rocky reports that it would “allow legislatures more opportunities for investing in other priorities.”

That is, not education. Instead of spending your own money on your priorities, politicians would spend your money on their priorities.  Amendment 59 would force you to donate to government-run schools, regardless
of your satisfaction with them. If you’d prefer to provide for your family, or donate your refund to schools or scholarships that politicians don’t favor, tough. Amendment 59 forbids it.

The amendment’s Web site claims to “protect our taxpayers.” From what, spending our money as we please?

For more on this, see VoteNo59.com.