Freedom Fest ’09 was time well spent for me. As the name implies, the conference was focused on economic freedom, free markets and libertarian ideas. Given that focus, and America's political and economic climate, the general tone of the conference sessions was negative for the short-term and guarded for the long-term. Essentially, America is suffering because of an overgrown federal government and its economic errors over the past 10 years. To make matters worse, the current administration is continuing those errors while dramatically increasing deficit spending and federal power over the economy. I found the contributions by Steve Forbes (Forbes magazine), Peter Schiff (Euro-Pacific Capital), David Boaz (Cato Institute), John Fund (Wall Street Journal), Keith Fitz-Gerald (Fitz-Gerald Research) and Tom Woods (Author) most valuable among the many speakers on a wide range of topics.

As an indication of the consensus opinion on the economy, the most positive view came from Larry Kudlow of CNBC. After admitting he was wrong about a recovery starting in the last half of ’09, he predicted 2-3% growth in 2010. None of the other speakers I heard predicted that much economic growth. They pointed to the continuing fiscal and monetary irresponsibility of the Federal government and the Democrat plans for Cap and Trade taxes and the nationalization of healthcare as reasons for pessimism. Their predictions ranged from mild recovery coupled with double-digit inflation to depression and deflation. Their primary concern was the value of the U.S. dollar. With the Federal Reserve continuing to maintain artificially low interest rates and the Congress and the President running up ever higher budget deficits, the dollar will continue to lose value. The only point of disagreement was on the severity of the decline and its timing. Peter Schiff made a convincing case that, in the near future, the countries now buying US Treasury debt will stop doing so. They will, if they have not already, recognize the unsustainable nature of our fiscal and monetary policies, and act to protect themselves from the US dollar’s decline. When they stop buying our debt, the Federal Reserve will print money to buy it and set off high, if not hyper, inflation. His message, largely confirmed by the other speakers, was to diversify assets into foreign stocks, precious metals and foreign currencies. Peter Schiff’s 2007 book, Crash Proof, predicted today’s economic crisis. He has a new book coming out in October, Crash Proof 2.0. He is also considering a run for the Senate from Connecticut. See www.SchiffforSenate.com for more information.

The political message from the conference was less clear. There was, no surprise, widespread condemnation of the Democrats and their plans to turn America into a socialist state. There was also much criticism of George Bush and the Republicans for their blunders over the past eight years. Essentially, they abandoned free market principles and participated in the Federal spending binge. The political tone of the conference was decidedly libertarian – emphasizing our Constitution as well as economic and personal freedom. The speakers I heard danced around the issue of the Republican Party’s future. They acknowledged a severe credibility issue, but could not admit the party’s survival is in doubt. David Boaz did the best job of explaining the problem. American society, especially the younger generations, has become socially tolerant but remains politically center-right. The Republican Party is branded as socially intolerant and therefore cannot hope to attract the support necessary to regain power. So we are left with a big issue – What political force will arise to successfully counteract the rise of socialism in America?

The Campaign for Liberty (C4L) held one of their regional training conferences that somewhat overlapped Freedom Fest. This was by design so that the attendees of one could also participate in the other. C4L grew from Ron Paul’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. C4L’s focus seems to be on creating a grassroots network of liberty-minded people that can make a difference in future elections. C4L supports the US Constitution, the primacy of local government and personal and economic freedom. I see no difference between C4L’s core principles and those of the Libertarian Party.

The hopeful note that ran through Freedom Fest and the C4L sessions was the recognition that there is a widespread, although not yet well organized, movement in support of liberty in America. The best example is the Tea parties held around the country on April 15th and July 4th. Many of these events have attracted large crowds concerned about the future of freedom in America. There are also several emerging efforts on the web that oppose the actions of the Federal government and target the Congress as the problem. Two examples are www.downsizedc.org and www.kickthemallout.com. I hope we see a melding of these groups into a political movement.

My personal view is that the Republican Party is broken beyond repair. The party’s broken brand will never be able to attract support from significant numbers of young people and unaffiliated voters. America is likely to have a three party system for the next few years – the dedicated socialists of the Democrat party, aging Republicans and the religious right, and a diverse group of liberty-minded people coalescing into a new political force. This third ‘party’ will be seeking an identity and organizing principles. The Libertarian Party, although not a significant factor in national politics today, can be the organizational structure that gives this movement an ideological home and a logistical base from which to grow. I believe the Libertarian Party has an opportunity and an obligation to be proactive in marketing to young people and unaffiliated voters in order to build itself into a third party capable of winning congressional elections and, at least, influencing the outcome of presidential elections.

Everything I heard at Freedom Fest was consistent with the ideas and strategy in my book, "It's the Congress, Stupid!", available at www.defeatcongress.org.

The recent state Board of Health vote against restricting the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers was certainly a victory for the citizens of Colorado and for freedom. However, board president Glenn Schlabs' quote in the article is a cause for concern.

Schlabs said, "I don't believe we need to model our rule-making on comments of the people who came forward to speak today. I don't feel compelled to fashion regulation that appeals to you. That's why we're the board of health."


Nearly 15,000 Colorado residents are expected to use medical marijuana by 2010. These patients, plus hundreds of others who came to the Auraria campus Monday, deserve to have their voices heard. Schlabs implied that Monday's testimony against the proposal was meaningless to him and as a board member, he has the privilege of making decisions for Coloradans without fairly considering every perspective. Why have a public hearing if the public is irrelevant?

This is in response to Ryan Neece’s letter to the editor where he sings the praises of government over private enterprise.

Of course, Neece is right that fraud in the private sector should not be tolerated, which is why fraud is illegal and contract law exists.

However, he fails to recognize that the Ponzi scheme for which Bernie Madoff received 150 years in prison is imposed upon every one of us by the government.

It's called "Social Security".

The government promised to take money from workers, keep it in a trust fund and return it upon retirement. Just like Madoff, however, the government takes the money from today's "investors" and gives it directly to yesterday's "investors".

There is no "trust fund". There is no "investment".

There is only fraud.

On July 13, 2009 the Aurora City Council, on a 9-0 vote, approved placing a property tax increase initiative/referral on the 2009 ballot.

Local residents collected over 700 petition signatures to present to city council for consideration.

The initiative/referral, for a General Improvement District, would be dedicated to funding the city's library system. Since this is not a Special District, there will be no separate board to oversee the library operations. The library will continue to be run as a city department.

Currently the Library system is funded from the city's general fund and is provided over $7 million dollars per year. If this initiative/referral is approved, the $7 million currently going to the libraries will be redirected to the city's general fund.

The city's "facts" sheet notes that "The initial GID tax levy is anticipated to be 4.29 mills which equates to about $5.69 per month for a home with a market value of $200,000. The Library General Improvement District would have the authority to set an annual property tax mill levy to generate up to $12,514,000, adjusted for inflation, to fully fund library services."

In addition to the property tax increase, the measure would allow for yearly property tax increases to match the inflation rate.

With this effort the city general fund will be receiving an additional $7 million each year (what used to go to the libraries) and the residents will have an additional $12 million dollar property tax burden.

Of all the measures the city has looked at to reduce expenses, there has never been any discussion about reducing city employee pay or benefits. This initiative/referral has a built in "de-brucing", with the automatic adjustment each year for inflation. In essence the city gets a property tax increase for libraries, increases the funds going to their general operations and place the initiative/referral on the ballot under the guise of helping the libraries.

Given the hard economic times that the city residents are facing, the city council has no shame about placing this tax increase on the ballot this fall.

If you are interested in opposing this measure, please contact Jim Frye.

Interesting that Michael Bowman thinks we can't "ignore the science" that warming is happening. What science is he willing to ignore? That which shows that natural forces account for 99.81 percent or greater of all climate change? Or ignore the fact that new additions of CO₂ to the atmosphere will have negligible effect on temperature? Or perhaps the fact that major CO₂ increases have occurred on average 800 years after temperatures increase, since oceans give off CO₂ as they warm?

Perhaps we should ignore the unreliable temperature data in the U.S. and elsewhere due to their corrupted locations and databases. Or should we ignore the past decade of global cooling and the total lack of sunspots that help warm the Earth? Or the satellite temperature data showing no warming? What science should we ignore, Mr. Bowman?

Maybe we should also ignore the economics of the Waxman/Markey bill as presented by the Congressional Budget Office, showing the cost approaching another $1 trillion.

Better yet, perhaps we should ignore all of the "sky is falling" pronouncements of the people who think they can control the weather.

This letter to the editor appeared in the Denver Post on June 28, 2009.