October 11, 2011 04:35 PM UTC

Proposition 103: The Incredible Shrinking Scare Tactic

•  
• 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.