Libertarian Voter Guide

Libertarian Voter Guide
by Chris Leinster

When evaluating any legislation, Libertarians instinctively ask “Does this promote Liberty? Does this lower our tax burden?” and “Does this restrict the government to its role as relegated by the Constitution?” Anyone interested in lower taxes and responsible government may be interested in the Libertarian position on Colorado’s ballot initiatives.

Amendment 34 has to do with the process for property owners to collect damages against developers and construction companies for faulty workmanship. Although this sounds like a good deal for most citizens, the amendment probably has more to do with benefiting lawyers than homeowners. Colorado’s liability laws may be flawed, but this type of legislation doesn’t belong in Colorado’s Constitution. Vote No on 34.

Amendment 35 raises cigarette taxes to pay for government health care. This measure fails on all three criteria defined in the opening paragraph. Colorado currently spends over 145 million annually on tobacco education and prevention with almost zero effect on consumption. When government programs aren’t working the inevitable course of government is to give you more of it. This is money that the state takes out of your pocket that could otherwise be used to buy food, medicine, or clothing for your family, and this is on top of tax money that the federal government takes from you to subsidize the tobacco farmers. Libertarians believe that if you are stupid enough to put that poison in your body then it is not the government’s responsibility to pay to cure your illnesses. Those without adequate insurance should seek help from private charities, and we’d all have more to contribute to charity if the government would simply leave our paychecks alone. Vote No on 35.

Amendment 36 allocates Colorado’s electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote of Colorado voters rather than the winner take all system that currently exists. This one is a little sticky. In theory this amendment could greatly benefit third parties by making it easier to garner electoral votes. On the other hand the Electoral College was designed by the Founding Fathers to prohibit highly populated urban areas from usurping power from rural areas of differing values, and this system has served us well for over two hundred years. It should be noted that this legislation is being sponsored by outside interests in an effort to put John Kerry into office. The Colorado Libertarian Party supports amendment 36, but encourages everyone to study the issue and vote their conscience.

Amendment 37 requires Colorado utilities to generate or purchase a portion of their electric power from renewable energy sources like wind or solar energy. We would all prefer clean and renewable energy sources, and the company that invents a low cost alternative to fossil fuels will be incredibly profitable indeed. Market forces will drive the movement toward renewable energy, especially if the government stops subsidizing the fossil fuel industry with our tax dollars. Libertarians know that government regulation, government monopolies, and government subsidies are the greatest obstacle to renewable energy, and more government is never a solution. Vote No on 37.

Referendum A deals with the way the state hires civil servants. Our civil servant system may well need reform, but this measure gives too much power to the governor and his administration to hire state employees and award government contracts. Vote No on Referendum A.
Referendum B eliminates obsolete provisions of the state Constitution. The Libertarian Party supports any measure that simplifies government, including eliminating obsolete, redundant, or useless legislation. Vote Yes on Referendum B.

Referendum 4A is the FasTracks Tax to fund light rail and commuter trains in and around Denver. Everyone loves trains, and when private investors figure out how to pay for and profit from commuter rail I’ll be the first one on board. Governor Owens calls FasTracks “more tax and less tracks”. DRCOG’s own studies prove that FasTracks will do absolutely nothing to reduce pollution or alleviate congestion. FasTracks is nothing but reverse Robin Hood corporate welfare. Vote No No No on Referendum 4A!
Referendum 4B asks voters to extend the SCFD tax to fund the Denver Zoo, the Performing Arts Center, the Butterfly Pavilion, and other arts and cultural facilities. A basic tenet of Libertarianism is that we could all afford to attend recreational events if only the government would let us keep the money we earn- even if that meant higher admission prices. Vote No on Referendum 4B.

These are the suggested positions of the Colorado Libertarian Party. Anyone interested in limited responsible government and individual liberty should consider voting along these lines. The Libertarian Party asks you to educate and familiarize yourself with the ballot proposals and to always vote for what you believe.

Comments

[nman]

WTF? (WHO THINKS FRENCH?)

Ok, on the Colo. Libertarian website, we have:
"Referendum A - No
This proposal will promote "cronyism" to unprecidented levels. Comparing applicant qualifications, rather than testing, could EASILY be manipulated to allow state employees to be HIRED based on their political connections and not on merit."
("unprecedented" is correct.)

And on the just published Colorado Libertarian newsletter "Liberty" we have an apparent endorsement:

"LIBERTARIAN ANANLYSIS; In spite of the 140 appointments which would be available to the governor's office, this amendment removes the constitutional provision requiring testing o job applicants and allows a personnel manger to use background an experience as basis for qualification. This amendment simplifies the state constitution regarding the personnel system."

Great. That just about covers every angle. Vote against it. Vote for it. Sounds like John Kerry.

Here's what the State says Referendum A will do: Comments added!

sniplet:

Date: October 18, 2004
Author: Public Relations Office
Subject: Civil Service Reform Proposal

Civil Service Reform Proposal - HCR04-1005October 2004In the upcoming election, voters will be asked to pass HCR04-1005, which amends Colorado’s Constitution in an effort to reform civil service. This proposal will affect state employees as changes are proposed in the following areas:

Methods used to evaluate which applicants are the most qualified for positions;· Comment: How?I guess they'll decide later.

Positions currently in the classified system, which would be open to political appointments;·
Comment: Yep, cronyism. 140 more hand selected good ole boys .... in charge of hiring....

Contracting for personnel services;·
Comment: Always more expensive, because private contractors must make a profit.

The number of top applicants to be referred for interviews for each positions;
Comment: This is total farce. The premise is that there are not enough applicants - only three. The problem is that if an applicant is knowledgeable he/she might be able to overcome the subjective ness of the current system, and get an interview. If they can interview six people instead of three, there is a better chance they can hire a friend rather than a smart person for the job. Regarding testing: the State's complaint is that they have to hire the smartest people, and they want to devise an alternate subjective test. Let me explain the current apparatus. For example, in the Colorado Department of Transportation, promotional testing consists of the following: 1. a written test that equals 50 percent of your final exam score.(objective) 2. an oral test that equals 25% of your final score (subjective) and 3. a "rating" of what the supervisor thinks about your performance that equals 25% of your final score. So as you can see, 50% of your final score is possible attained subjectively. But apparently this still presents the good ole boys with too much of a challenge! They want to change the law from " competitive tests of competence" to "COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS", whatever the hell that is. It is ridiculous. ·

Residency requirements;·
Comment: They want to farm out Colorado jobs. This goes farther that Kansas, Dorothy.

Appointing authorities/who has authority to make hiring decisions;·
Comment: These are the people who should be fired.·

When certified employees are entitled to hold their positions;·

Circumstances under which employees may be disciplined, suspended or dismissed;
Comment: They want to take away more employee rights.·

Length of service for temporary employees;·
Comment: They want to hire less skilled people from out of state (country?) for less wages for a longer period of time.·

Eligibility lists for permanent positions;·
Comment: They want to weed out the smart folks. It's a fear thing. Don't hire anyone smarter than yourself.·

Probationary periods for new employees;
Who these rules would apply to;
State Personnel Board, including terms of service;· State Department of Personnel and State Personnel Director;

Veterans’ preference in hiring and in times of reductions in force. ·
Comment: This is to play on voter's emotions during stressful times to get the referendum passed.

desnip!

Possibly I'm off a bit on some of this but you get the idea. In a couple of months I'll have worked for the State of Colorado for a decade. We need Civil Service Reform in Colorado, but this is just Owens playing lip service to the international Civil Service Reformers. He has plans for the future. Look at his eyes. He's an alien. lol.
Have to sign anon, don't want to get black balled just yet. Yes, it's that bad.

[severin]

Chris wrote this, he is the Chairperson for the Denver County LP, on Referendum A it appears the Denver LP and the State LP differ. I did not notice the difference before posting this up, sorry for the confusion, but on this issue I would suggest reading both arguments and making up your own mind.

[Chris]

I went with the CLP web info because I didn't have the analysis in the Liberty. Sometimes getting a consensus in this party is like herding cats. As I stated in the article, educate yourself and vote for what you believe.

CL

[rand]

I am in favor of this referendum because in these matters I would rather the hiring managers choose their own method for evaluating applicants, rather that codifying the process by law. I don't care that the governor gets more appointments. Let's trust people to do their job rather than making them slaves to a rulebook.