President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 11, 2011 04:35 PM UTC

Proposition 103: The Incredible Shrinking Scare Tactic

  • 28 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve talked a few times now about a study performed by an out-of-state economist named Eric Fruits, an adjunct professor of economics at Portland State University in Oregon. Fruits’ study predicts that if passed, Colorado’s Proposition 103 could result in some 30,000 in “reduced employment” during the five years it would be in effect. As you know, Proposition 103 would return Colorado’s sales and income tax rates to 1999 levels for five years–increasing from 2.9% to 3% and 4.63 to 5% respectively to raise funds for public education.

We’ve gone over a number of reasons why even the author of the study concedes that these numbers are not “job loss” predictions at all, and Dr. Fruits’ admission that Proposition 103 is a “modest increase.” Beyond that, local opponents of Proposition 103 led by former state Rep. Victor Mitchell have made absolutely nonsensical claims about Proposition 103, insisting that Fruits’ numbers “compound” into 119,000 “killed jobs”–a simple arithmetic error producing a totally absurd result, which not even Dr. Fruits attempts to defend. But as you can read on Mitchell’s anti-103 website right now, they’re not interested in correcting themselves.

We never thought we’d say this, but the Golden-based right wing thinktank The Independence Institute has actually tried to present a somewhat more realistic assessment. In their new study on the possible impacts of Proposition 103, while we certainly don’t endorse Jon Caldara’s “as if he wouldn’t” projections of job losses either, we do note that the Independence Institute:

1. Correctly cites Dr. Fruits’ study, without the ridiculous math error, and

2. Predicts a much smaller “reduction” of about 11,000 jobs over the five year period.

Of course, we take any projection of hardship from simply restoring tax rates from 1999 as highly suspect. It’s as simple as remembering that the tax rates from that period didn’t actually hurt anything, as Colorado’s tax burden was and is significantly below average–and will be even after Proposition 103 passes. But the tax cuts enacted in 1999 and 2000 are what have had consequences in subsequent years. How different would Colorado’s education funding situation be had these rates simply not been cut 12 years ago?

With that said, it makes sense to us that the Independence Institute is playing this, if you will, more “legitimately”–regularly accused of distorting facts to draw one-sided conclusions, the Independence Institute is nevertheless not generally accused of wholesale fabrications to quite Mitchell’s extreme here. As an organization responsible for a significant amount of dense legislative analysis and other wonkery, at some level they’ve got a reputation to uphold.

But with three weeks left until the election, what is likely to happen? Mitchell and his wing of the Prop. 103 opposition have no intention we can see of conceding error, no matter how many times their big scary number is shown to be embarrassing poppycock. Meanwhile, the Independence Institute can position itself as the more “credible” representative of the opposition to 103 with its more “realistic” smaller prediction. The key thing to understand is that both of these message campaigns can operate freely and without much conflict. Caldara can even triangulate off of Mitchell a little while still advocating the same bottom line.

Because the Independence Institute, even as it implicitly reveals Mitchell’s credibility-killing error in its study, isn’t going to waste significant time correcting the record. In fact, each of them is happy to help the other reach their intended audiences. The undifferentiated talk-radio message becomes, “‘experts’ say it will kill 10,000 jobs, others say it could kill over 119,000!”

Do you see how that works? The slightly less crazy legitimizes the full-on crazy, and boxes in the argument. We’re not accusing them of coordinating this, but this really seems like a classic debate trick to us. Either way, you’re stuck on their “job loss” frame, and arguing over degree.

Not encouragingly, the press has more or less transcribed uncritically the most absurd numbers fed them so far, with the exception of niche publications like the Colorado Statesman who have done an excellent job for the “inside baseball” crowd. But that won’t be enough: the mainstream press needs to do its job exposing these fallacies, and soon.

Tweet
Share

Comments

28 thoughts on “Proposition 103: The Incredible Shrinking Scare Tactic”

  1. Is increase the number of jobs in Colorado. The high tech industry (which is a substantial part of Colorado’s economy) has a ton of open jobs. And not enough people with the required education to fill those jobs.

    103 will increase the educational level of our kids. That means more people we can hire. That means more taxpayers. 103 is an investment in this state’s future and a job creator.

    Those that oppose it, including the Independence Institute, are harming the future of high tech business in this state. So please do not call those job killers pro-business.

  2. It is not about jobs. It is about waste. All of the little government waste adds up. Idiot Mike Rosen says there is no more than 2-3% waste total in all government. HE is obviously a fascist sympathizer.

    Truth is, the waste from government, government regulation, Wall Street, criminals, non-profits such as Golden I.I., and other largess has nearly sucked the blood out of our capitalist engine. This prosperity machine is on life support. I have not even factored in the destructive power of Mother Nature.

    Just look at the occupiers, they are smart enough to realize it takes minimum 20 per hour just to purchase jeans and tires.

    2. Mike is a lot of things and holds opinions that I heartily disagree with and stances I oppose.

      That said, I feel fairly confident Rosen is not a fascist sympathizer. Dial back the crazy. It’s a little early in the morning for it, Mark.

      1. Mike loves the military industrial complex, Wall-Street welfare, Banker regulation monopoly favors, Pat Bowen and other event welfare. What more do I need to say?

        Mike Rosen wraps a few libertarian concepts inside massive amounts of socialist/fascist lies. Sure Mike’s rhetoric is offensive to ardent socialist such as those here at Pols, but most sound economist/freedom lovers see right through Michael Rosenthal.

        1. Since after all, only libertarians can love freedom and liberty, and I’m a fascist and a communist with socialist tendencies that knows nothing about economics and democracy (you know since I’m a registered Democrat).

          In reality, the only thing libertarians and tea partiers love… is money

        2. Your entire paragraph makes no sense.

          Sure Mike’s rhetoric is offensive to ardent socialist such as those here at Pols, but most sound economist/freedom lovers see right through Michael Rosenthal.

          So your point was to reiterate that no one likes Mike Rosen? Do you have a point? Oh fuck it–I can answer my own question. No, you do not.

          Quit while you’re behind.  

      1. No, I do not support Reagan, Voodo, Trickle,Supply Side or similar.

        Vampire means, through redistribution and regulation, we have drained too much life blood from the economic engine.  

        1. If you don’t like Reagan’s regulation-free, no-tax, hands off the-market-will-take-care-of-itself policies; and you don’t like the tax-the-rich-to-support-the-poor-and-middle-class-so-they-have-somewhere-to-send-their-kids-to-school policies, then what do you believe in?

          Or are you just spouting empty anti-establishment rhetoric?  

          1. Vampire, voodoo, whoodo, youdo…

            It doesn’t matter to Mr. Mark.

            Anything Obama does is bad.

            Doesn’t go beyond that so don’t try finding anything.

      1. Cute video.

        Try this instead.

        “Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.”

        http://mises.org/daily/5752/Th…

        2. Someone molded their own definition of fascism that conveniently and grossly hyperbolizes U.S. economic policy in an attempt to label the federal government as fascist.

          That’s like me saying, “communism is a system of government that helps poor sick people get treated, provides all children with an education, and taxes wealthy people more than poor people”.

          Wow, the U.S. must be run by a bunch of communists!

          The U.S. is a representative democracy. Nowhere in our constitution does it say we must have a completely free market economy. Nor does the Bill of Rights say we have the freedom to sell whatever we want with no limitations.

          We as electors, get to choose through our representatives what actions Our government can and can’t take. If that means We want a policy that is more associated with a socialist philosophy, then we can choose that. If we want to enact policies that you may consider ‘fascist’, then we can choose that as well.

    5. to back up your previous (recent) idiotic claims, MarkG?

      Can you document your 12:1 claim yet?

      And what about your premature emmissions claim? No facts there either, huh?

      I think I am beginning to gain insight into your aversion to the evidence-based reality the rest of us live in, MarkG. You so suck at making things up that real, live facts must just terrify you. Bummer about that.

  4. Prop 103 will take over $500 million per year out of the private sector in our state in put it into government hands.

    It is a rule of economics that the less capital available, the fewer jobs can be created. If $500 million that was previously available to the private sector is suddenly removed from circulation in the economy, job losses must result.

    I believe that Pols has probably demonstrated hat the 119,000 number is too high. But the Independence Institute’s number is realistic, and this is an economy that cannot afford to lose a single job to higher taxes.

    Hope this helps.

    1. if the only thing the government did with tax money was to set it on fire. But the government actually pays people in education, thus creating jobs. Maybe those don’t count because pushing imaginary money around in the stock market for billionaires until it all goes away is “valuable” while teaching kids is “worthless,” but from the point of view of getting a paycheck at the end of the month, they’re both jobs.

      Speaking of setting money on fire, did you hear about the investors who lost trillions of dollars in the stock market? Just lost it. Not like someone else got it, it’s just gone. Nowhere. Wasn’t even wasted on educating young people!

      1. they have “jobs,” and they don’t circulate their pay back into the economy, they bury it under a bridge. And the children they teach don’t become productive members of society, they just want to occupy some place. It’s so sad when libs try to reason, it’s like when cats try to do long division. I hope this helps.  

    3. Prop 103 is an investment that will make it possible for me to hire more people. It’s fine that you oppose Prop 103 for whatever reason, but at least own up to the fact that opposing Prop 103 is anti-business and anti-jobs.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

178 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!