A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

HB 2079 PASSES LEGISLATURE 3 BUDGET TRANSPARENCY ONE STEP CLOSER 7

LIVING LIBERTYMAY 2007 A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT 4

E arlier this year, school choice advocates throughout the nation were encouraged by the state of Utah s̓ decision to become the fi rst state to offer vouchers to students

state-wide. For the fi rst time, true school choice was to be offered via a voucher system available for most of Utah s̓ students. This victory, coupled with advancements in states such as Florida and Arizona, gives hope to millions around the nation, including us in Washington, that an educational system with options could be in their future.

Hold the horns and confetti. Reform advocates nationwide must also take note of efforts to repossess some of the past gains. For example, in Ohio last month, there was yet another case of politics winning out over the needs of America s̓ youth. Governor Ted Strickland, in an interview with the Associated Press, expressed his intention to halt and eventually roll back the charter school movement and virtually eliminate Ohio s̓ voucher system. Vouchers serve fewer than 3,000 students in Ohio s̓ under-performing school districts.

Charter Schools serve a larger segment of the population. Over 76,000 students attend charter schools, but Strickland has distaste for companies that can make a profi t off public dollars. It s̓ a shame he doesn t̓ also have a dislike for schools that take public money and fail miserably, leaving worried parents with nowhere to turn.

Strickland is supporting a bill that would prevent any new Charter schools from opening in Ohio until 2009. The bill contains a number of requirements, all designed to cripple the Charter school

movement in Ohio. He is doing this despite the fact that many charter schools out-perform traditional public schools in both test scores and graduation rates.

An example would be the new requirement that makes teaching licenses mandatory. The new law insists that charter schools would now have to meet the exact requirements of the traditional public school. Sounds good on the surface, but in reality it takes away the charter school̓ s ability to recruit the best teacher for the job. There is little research to show that these “licensing requirements” have done anything to improve classroom performance.

It seems Governor Strickland is also concerned about our democracy. “To me, vouchers are inherently undemocratic because they allow public dollars to be used in ways and in settings where the public has little or no oversight,” Strickland says. “Those who are paying those tax dollars have no ability to vote for a Board of Education or to make determinations regarding curriculum, or discipline or admission policies or a whole range of things,” he added.

In truth, the Governor is basically paying back one of the major constituents to his election, the teacher s̓ union. The union s̓ support helped

by Steven Maggi

Strickland become the fi rst Democrat to win the Governorship in 16 years. He has rewarded them by quickly putting a stop to anything that threatens their hold on the state s̓ educational system.

Talk about disingenuous. To say that vouchers and charter schools are not democratic is 180 degrees wrong. Money allows parents the ability to choose among a wide variety of schools that give their children a shot at a decent education. Nowhere is this truer than in the inner-city, where poor families are handcuffed with failing schools that give their children little if no chance to succeed. In truth, being constricted to a system that allows a child to fl ounder in a school based only on geography is closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.

Governor Strickland is concerned with a system that may have no room for public oversight, the implication being that the current public system has the proper oversight. The facts, however, paint a picture of a failing monopoly that costs too much and produces too little. Private and charter schools get better results with less money. Those taking advantage of vouchers receive signifi cantly less than what the per-pupil cost of a student is in Ohio. Currently, Ohio parents receive vouchers for $4,250 for elementary education and $5,000 for high school. Public school costs per-pupil average over $8,000, with some urban districts expending well over $12,000. Charter schools get better results with only about 70 percent of the funding.

Ohio s̓ educational system, like many in this country, has little to brag about. The eighth largest districts in the state have only 56 percent of their students passing the state s̓ reading test. Math is even worse, with only 44 percent passing. Even scarier is the fact that, according to the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 40 to 50 percent of these children fail to graduate from high school.

Yet, Governor Strickland is concerned about democracy and the people s̓ right to have impact in their children s̓ education. But really, what oversight does the public have over dollars spent in a union controlled monopoly?

Where s̓ the concern over an existing system that routinely fails in its objective to prepare its graduates for their futures? And where is the concern for the poorest parents in his state, who often live in areas with the lowest performing schools? If you take away their ability to place their children in schools that perform better, aren t̓ you taking away their American Dream to have their children live a better life?

“Public school costs per-pupil average over $8,000, with some urban districts expending well over $12,000. Charter schools get better results with only about 70 percent of the funding.”

by Steven Maggiby Steven Maggib

2 LIVING LIBERTY

34

5

67

8

912

“Quote”

Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552

Olympia, WA 98507(360) 956-3482

Fax (360) 352-1874 info@eff wa.org • www.eff wa.org

VOLUME 17, Issue 5

EFF s̓ mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

This Issue3 HB 2079 PASSES LEGISLATURE

4 STEFFIEʼS CHOICE TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT

5 A LESSON IN “FAITH-BASED” BUDGETING BEYOND CHARITY: ORGANIZATION MOBILIZES CHURCHES FOR

EMPLOYMENT OUTREACH

6 EDUCATION FUNDING DECISIONS SHOULDNʼT BE MADE WITHOUT FACTS

7 BUDGET TRANSPARENCY ONE STEP CLOSER

8 ECONOMIES THEN AND NOW UNBALANCING ACT: CONGRESS ̓SPENDING PLANS DONʼT ADD UP

9 ROOSEVELTʼS OR REAGANʼS AMERICA: A TIME FOR CHOOSING

12 ATTEND THE PLANNING FOR LIFE WORKSHOP ON MAY 17

Publisher:Booker StallworthEditor:Amber GunnLayout:Joel SorrellNausheen Kasmani

“We all know what this is about – it s̓ about funneling money from

members and nonmembers alike to the unions so they can make more

political contributions.”

– State Senate Minority Leader Mike Hewitt, R-Walla Walla, on HB 2079.

Pg. 6

Send us your thoughts.Here’s how:Letters, not exceeding 250 words, must include your full name, address and telephone numbers for verifi cation. This information will not be published. Letters become the property of Living Liberty and may be edited for clarity, brevity or grammar prior to publication.

Letters TO THE EDITOR

EDUCATION FUNDING DECISIONS

“$10,000? Whoo, wow. That’s quite a bit . . . I didn’t know.”

Send letters to:Living LibertyC/O Evergreen Freedom FoundationAttention: Booker Stallworth

Address: PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507Fax: 360.352.1874

E-mail: bstallworth@effwa.org

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

H ouse Bill 2079, intended to circumvent a pending ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court against the

Washington Education Association, cleared the Senate on April 13. HB 2079 weakens a law that requires unions

to get permission from nonmembers before spending their fees on political activity.

Democrats muscled the bill through the legislature despite strong opposition from teachers and other citi-

zens. The Offi ce of the Attorney General warned that HB 2079 could expose the state to further litigation by adopting a “constitutionally forbidden” accounting prac-tice.

During a committee executive session, Sen. Margarita Prentice (D-11th) revealed why the bill was so impor-tant to some lawmakers: “In union there s̓ strength, and there s̓ a reason why unions exist, and why they have the kind of power—and I think we need to do everything we can to preserve that,” she said.

The Senate fl oor debate on HB 2079 was spirited; Republican lawmakers introduced nine amendments which were all rejected. One amendment introduced by Sen. Mark Schoesler (R-9th) would have removed the emergency clause and allowed for a referendum of the bill. Speaking against the amendment, Sen. Ken Jacob-

by Michael ReitzHB 2079 Passes Legislature

“Sen. Karen Keiser (D-33rd) argued that protecting the Washington Education Association from legal harassment does constitute an emergency.”

sen (D-46th) said, “Sometimes the people out there make mistakes.” Sen. Karen Keiser (D-33rd) argued that protecting the Washington Education Association from legal harassment does constitute an emergency.

Another amendment guaranteed teachers the right to divert their dues to a charity of their choice. Sen. Don Benton (R-17th) referenced the plight of Vancouver teacher Susan Wiggs, whose union refused to send her dues to a charity that fi ghts the sex traffi cking of children. Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36th) spoke out against giving teachers a choice, warning that they might voluntarily give their dues to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

The bill then went to Governor Chris Gregoire for her signature, which placed her in an awkward position. In

her former role as attorney general, Gregoire prosecuted the Washington Education Association for its deliberate violations of the law, and her offi ce litigated the case all the way to the state Supreme Court.

Governor Gregoire clearly thought the issue was worth prosecuting six years ago. If she signs HB 2079, she is saddling the state with further litigation because of a likely challenge to the constitutionally suspect law.

The best course of action is to delay legislation until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the law.

“In union there’s strength, and there’s a reason why unions exist, and why they have the kind of power—and I think we need to do everything we can to preserve that,” she said.

MEMORIAL DAY- M AY 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 -

...WE ARE FOREVER INDEBTED TO THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES THAT WE MIGHT BE FREE.

~ RONALD REAGAN

Memorial Day honors the heroes

who laid down their lives to preserve our free-

dom. Th ere are several simple but meaningful

ways citizens can observe Memorial Day:

• Make sure your children and grand-children understand liberty and what the Declaration of Independence means by “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happi-ness.”

• Fly the U.S. Flag at half-staff until noon on Memorial Day.

• Visit veterans’ cemeteries and take your children with you. Leave fl ags and fl owers among the graves.

• Assist a widow, widower or orphan of our fallen.

• Aid a disabled veteran.

• Most importantly: Always remember

... freedom matters!

4 LIVING LIBERTY

WWW.EFFWA.ORG

W ashington State s̓ election system had a close call during the wrap-up of the 2007 legislative

session, as two Senate bills that would have reduced security and transparency came within a whisker of passing the House of Representatives.

Both pieces of legislation were on the House floor calendar for several days before the April 13 cut-off day, when bills must have passed both chambers to survive. Thanks to contacts from EFF members and outcry from the press and election officials, however, neither of the ill-conceived measures was brought up for a vote.

Election Day RegistrationOne measure was SB 5561, introduced by freshman Senator Eric Oemig, and would have allowed voter registration up to and on Election Day. Besides being poorly crafted, Oemig s̓ bill would have resulted in the security nightmare of unregistered voters casting ballots.

Currently, in order to vote in an upcoming election, a person must register by mail 30 days or in person 15 days before the election. SB 5561 removed the 15 day restriction on in-person registration. This was a major change. The cut-off date allows time for county officials to confirm registrants as legal voters and to conduct a final check on voter rolls before printing ballots and poll books.

Election Day registration would have required many new procedures for printing and mailing ballots, challenging voters, errors in voter registration applications, and the like. The bill addressed none of these, merely punting the problems to the Secretary of State to define by rule.

by Jonathan Bechtle, J.D.

Too Close for Comfort

Secretary of State Sam Reed and many of the county auditors opposed the bill not only because of the logistical headaches, but because it would have allowed people to cast ballots before their registrations were validated. Since our state s̓ election officials usually jump at the chance to improve voting convenience even if it reduces security (vote-by-mail, anyone?), their strong opposition underscored just how bad Senator Oemig s̓ bill really was.

If that wasn t̓ enough, a representative of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was a major cheerleader for the bill. ACORN is currently under investigation for submitting allegedly fraudulent registration forms in King County prior to the 2006 general election. Their actions are a perfect example of why voter registration security is necessary.

Election TransparencyThe other problem measure was SB 5566, introduced by Senator Rosa Franklin, which would have prohibited the copying of ballot envelope and poll book signatures, effectively preventing citizens from finding and publicizing illegal voting.

Our state and national election experiences of the past decade have made clear the need for accountability in the election process. As usually happens, citizens and reporters have been at the forefront of the effort to bring ballot boxes out of the dark, primarily through the use of public records.

Take double voting, for example. The most frequent cause of double voting is duplicate registrations on the state voter roll. After a duplicate registration is found,

however, the only way to confirm a double vote is to compare signatures on the ballot envelopes.

EFF staff and other researchers have used this process many times in the past couple of years to uncover dozens of double voters. Along the way, the system of signature verification has been shown to be a flawed and inadequate protection. SB 5566 would have prevented the continuing exposure of these problems, letting both election officials and prosecutors off the hook for improving mail ballot security and investigating election crimes.

Senator Franklin s̓ stated purpose behind the bill was to protect privacy, but no one has shown any evidence of election signatures being used for identity theft. A recent study by the State Archivist (a division of the Secretary of State s̓ office) concluded that only a miniscule percentage of identity theft results from public records. Despite this, Secretary Reed and several auditors supported SB 5566, showing little regard for the need for public oversight of elections.

EFF worked diligently to inform legislators and the public about these dangerous changes, and our members responded by contacting their legislators. While we are glad both measures died, the scary part is that they made it so far through the process. An election system only works if it has a proper balance of security and access, but many legislators seem inclined to only increase access, no matter the effect on security.

Washington s̓ system is already out of balance with an insecure vote-by-mail system. Oemig s̓ bill would have undermined the little security remaining, and Franklin s̓ bill would have kept us from exposing the resulting problems.

W hat could be worse than having to pay for your own mammogram? Being told you can t̓ pay for

one, of course. Especially if the wait for a “free” govern-ment scan is measured in months.

Case closed, right? Not if you r̓e Steffie Woolhandler, who along with her husband, David Himmelstein, has spent years urging Americans to adopt Canada s̓ health-care system.

A new Woolhandler study finds women are punished by high-deductible, Health Savings Account plans because they have expenses men don t̓ have: mammograms, pap smears, prenatal care, etc. The study is not available for public inspection. But for those who can t̓ wait, Woolhan-dler explained the bottom line to an AP reporter this way: “High-deductible plans punish women for having breasts and uteruses, and having babies.”

Move over, Rosie OʼDonnell.A glaring omission in the AP article: most HSA plans

make preventive care a first-dollar coverage exception to the high deductible, and/or deposit funds in the HSA so that women can purchase care on their own.

An even more glaring omission: failing to mention how women fare in Canada.

The organization Cancer Ontario reports an average wait time of more than five months between the first abnormal mammogram and a diagnosis of breast cancer. Some women wait more than seven months. A Fraser Institute study finds:

• Canadian women wait an average of 3 1⁄2 months for treatment after referral to an OB/GYN; and almost 7 months, in some places.

• Despite a new study showing that MRIʼs are espe-cially appropriate for women with high breast cancer risk, Canada has only half of the US number of MRI machines per capita.

• The average wait for an MRI in Canada is 2 1⁄2 months and in some places more than six months.

• Canadian women are not able to readily access sono-grams or ultrasounds in their doctorʼs office in most cases, and therefore must go to hospitals for their tests instead.

by John C. GoodmanSteffie’s Choice

“The organization Cancer Ontario reports an average wait time of more than five months between the first abnormal mammogram and a diagnosis of breast cancer. Some women wait more than seven months.”

In general, it is illegal in Canada to take money from patients for services that are supposed to be provided free by government. The exception is Quebec, where a Canadian Supreme Court ruled that patients have a right to buy on their own what they cannot get from the state without inordinate delay.

Mr. Goodman is president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Bad election bills nearly pass in eleventh hour

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

Volunteers are pivotal to the success of the program. On average, each Jobs for Life site has about 15 to 20 volunteers that regularly help with the program, plus extra volunteers to help with food and transportation. Business leaders often speak to groups or do mock interviews pro-bono as well.

By partnering with churches to help individuals gain vital skills for meaningful employment, Jobs for Life has tapped into a resource that has traditionally not been used for employment assistance. Spickard says only one percent of churches in America do any outreach related to employment.

Jobs for Life is well on its way to changing that.

by Amber GunnA Lesson in “Faith-based” Budgeting

D id you ever want an example of what not to do when creating a budget? Look no further than the

budget adopted by the legislature this session. The budget violates the most basic premise of creating

any financial plan: don t̓ spend more than you expect to make. The legislature knowingly exceeded forecasted revenue. Even without a downturn in the economy, spending outpaces revenue by nearly $1.3 billion!

Majority Democrats are embarking on a grand

experiment in “faith-based budgeting.” Unfortunately for you and me, it s̓ our money they r̓e experimenting with.

Democrats have decided the expert economists must be wrong and that the economy will continue to outpace historic and projected growth. This is their first great leap of faith.

They have also shifted nearly $500 million around in their supplemental budget plan for 2007 to drive the taxpayer s̓ spending cap upward. Rep. Helen Sommers (D-36), chief architect of the House budget, was astonishingly honest about the budget gimmick, saying

it was necessary to give lawmakers enough spending authority to cover desired programs.

These budget games show apparent indifference to a pending state Supreme Court ruling, expected any day. In 2006, a Snohomish County Superior Court found account shifting for the sole purpose of raising the spending cap to be illegal.

Democratic leaders chose to go ahead with continued fudging of the spending limit, apparently with the

conviction that a Supreme Court decision on this matter will go their way. But should the outcome defy their expectations, the current budget s̓ legality and spending levels will be called into question.

Lawmakers are also parading their faith that the billions they ʻinvestʼ in the budget will actually deliver meaningful performance, even though expected performance outcomes are not identified in the budget bills.

The 500-page appropriation bill, for the most part, reads like a laundry list of ways to spend money, without

W ith the expected demographic shift over the next ten years as baby boomers line up for retirement,

unlimited subsidies and entitlements will need to be radically scaled down.

Lawmakers will be forced to recognize various entitlement programs for the unsustainable disasters they are. As that happens, the private sector, non-profits, and charities will be moving in to pick up the slack.

Jobs for Life is just such an organization, centered around a strategy of bringing businesses together with churches and community organizations to train the unemployed and to position them within a business.

The non-profit was launched more than a decade ago, after Chris Magnum, head of a major contracting company in Raleigh, N.C., mentioned to Reverend Donald L. McCoy over lunch that many of his company s̓ trucks were parked, because of a lack of good drivers. Pastor McCoy replied that many in his congregation were effectively “parked” because of a lack of meaningful employment.

The conversation sparked a movement rooted in the principle of instilling attitudes, values, and life skills that people can apply in the context of employment.

Jobs for Life, a 501(c) (3) non-profit organization, began as National Jobs Partnership and centered on a strategy of bringing businesses together with churches and community organizations.

The program has become an eye-catching success. Today, Jobs for Life has more than 80 active sites and an estimated 1,500 volunteers engaged in implementing the program across the country.

The majority of program participants are homeless, chronically unemployed, and/or formerly incarcerated—which makes the success rate for the program impressive. An estimated 70 to 80 percent of Jobs for Life graduates remain employed more than a year after completing the program.

The success of Jobs for Life has proven to be a shining example of how private organizations, individuals, and volunteers can positively impact the unemployed population through volunteerism.

Many Americans seem to already have a built-in preference to channel funds through private organizations, which can be more effective and successful than government in making the best choices regarding where money should go and how it should be handled. In 2000, nearly 9 out of 10 U.S. households gave to domestic or foreign charities.

Jobs for Life has tapped into that spirit of generosity and volunteerism in its program. The majority of funding for the organization comes from individual donations. Additionally, the non-profit accepts no public funds, which gives them added flexibility.

David Spickard, the CEO of Jobs for Life, has been with the non-profit since 1999 and attributes the program s̓ success to the unique idea of teaching individuals life skills, rather than just employment skills.

“Many companies teach the hard employment skills, but they have little time to teach individuals values and attitudes that make a person whole—that must be taken care of before they arrive,” said Spickard. “Jobs for Life teaches a man or woman life principles that can be applied in the marketplace. Things like conflict resolution, respect for authority, and taking responsibility for one s̓ own actions are concepts we try to cultivate in people through the program.”

Jobs for Life expects to serve about 1,500 people this year, up from 300 a few years ago when it was still Jobs Partnership. The cost per person served has also dropped from around $2,000 when the organization began to approximately $150 today.

Spickard says these positive changes are mostly due to a change in strategy implemented a few years ago. Rather than try to create a new non-profit in each community to work with local churches, they decided to equip existing organizations with the Jobs for Life tools. This strategy encouraged the formation of multiple sites for a more efficient and cost-effective approach.

Under the new plan, churches and community organizations can purchase a Jobs for Life toolkit complete with 10 student workbooks, instructor guides, student progress reports and other tools.

by Amber GunnBeyond Charity: Organization Mobilizes Churches for Employment Outreach

identifying the returns taxpayers can expect. Without measurable performance outcomes, there is no way to determine if the programs actually delivered the results for which the programs were created.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, Democrats have given us a shining example of what not to do when crafting a financial plan. Budgets should never be adopted based on faith. Creating a budget based on the expectation of revenue not forecasted will increase the likelihood that painful spending cuts or tax increases will be necessary when the revenue doesn t̓ materialize.

Shifting funds between accounts to circumvent the spending cap is a game that should not be tolerated, especially in light of the fact that a superior court has already ruled the maneuver illegal. If legislators don t̓ like the spending limit, they should repeal it and face voters on the decision.

Lawmakers cannot expect programs to deliver results when performance criteria to measure outcomes against are not provided.

Those who voted for this proposal should pledge to taxpayers today that they will not resort to tax increases to bail themselves out of the $1.3 billion self-inflicted deficit created by their gamble. The Democrat s̓ faith-based budget is likely to leave taxpayers facing a spiritual meltdown once economic reality sets in.

“The 500-page appropriation bill, for the most part, reads like a laundry list of ways to spend money, without identifying the returns taxpayers can expect.”

6 LIVING LIBERTY

I t s̓ easy to have an opinion. It takes a little more work to have an informed opinion.

A recent survey of 400 registered voters in Washington shows that almost everyone has opinions about whether the state is spending enough on its K–12 public schools, but almost nobody knows how much is actually being spent.

Sixty percent of those asked felt public schools were underfunded . . . until they found out how much is being spent. Our state spends an average of more than $10,000 per pupil annually, but only 12 percent of respondents came within $2,000 of knowing that number. When asked if $10,000 per pupil each year seemed too high, too low, or just about right, 61 percent said it seemed either too high or just about right.

Responsible citizenship, especially on matters relating to the education of our children, requires more than simply having opinions and going to the polls on voting day. But even the most responsible citizens will have trouble fi nding the facts about K–12 public education spending in our state.

This is because the average person gets information about schools from a newspaper, and our state s̓ large newspapers aren t̓ reporting specifi cs when it comes to total education spending.

A recent analysis by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation discovered that out of a total of 489 education-related articles published in one year in three large regional newspapers (216 in the Seattle Times, 119 in the

Columbian and 154 in the Spokesman-Review), not one mentioned the state s̓ average total per-pupil spending (or total spending, period) for K–12 schools. Only twelve articles mentioned specifi c portions of school funding.

Meanwhile, calls for more money from offi cials and staff within the state s̓ K–12 public school system are perpetual and loud. Members of the Washington Learns initiative (chaired by the Governor) have recommended an education spending increase. The Washington Education Association (state teachersʼ union) is threatening to sue if the Committee doesn t̓ recommend a big enough increase.

Are they right? Do our schools need more money? Here are some basic facts and questions to help you

decide. First, Washington spent an average of $10,121 per

student in 2004-05 (the most recent year for which data is available). That includes money from federal, state and local funds. It represents the total cost to taxpayers for our K–12 public schools (from instructing students to building classrooms).

Second, average per-pupil spending increased an infl ation-adjusted 20 percent over the past ten years (1995-2005, based on IPD). Thus, the state is spending 20 percent more per pupil today than it spent ten years ago.

Third, answering the question of whether $10,121 is enough requires knowing the answers to other important questions, such as: Do we know the results we want from our public schools? Are dollars being spent in the most effi cient and effective way possible to achieve those results?

In 2002, when former Governor Gary Locke asked state agencies to prioritize their spending and identify

clear outcomes, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson refused to participate. In the most recent budget, Bergeson has just one “expected result” for annual expenditures that total $8.5 billion: “Develop and implement an improved K–12 education funding model, in partnership with the Legislature, school districts, and other education partners.”

That might be an acceptable priority if our public schools existed to spend money, but most people would say they exist to educate students.

Right now, the majority of students in every grade tested fail at least one core subject. One out of three students fails to graduate from high school on time. More than half of those who do earn a diploma and go on to community college must take remedial courses in the basics. Many of our best teachers and administrators are deeply frustrated and discouraged.

Is it possible we can do better? We think so.Imagine what we could achieve if we thought of

public education as a goal (an educated public) rather than a particular kind of delivery system (state-operated schools). Imagine what $10,121 could buy if parents were allowed to spend it on the diverse educational options that best met the needs of each of their children.

These ideas are worth discussing, but fi rst citizens must have access to comprehensive and unbiased facts. Only then will our discussion have substance. Only then will we begin to solve problems and expand opportunities.

by Marsha MichaelisEducation funding decisions shouldn’t be made without facts

Do you know how much weʼre currently spending?

The fact is Washington spends $10,000 per student per year.

$10,000 per student per year.

“$10,000? Whoo, wow, that’s quite a bit... I didn’t know.”

The fact is The fact is Washington Washington

“I can’t specifi cally say, but …They always say they need more money.”

Do you think weʼre

spending enough on our stateʼs public

schools?

Do you know how

Do you Do you think weʼre think weʼre

“I don’t think we could ever spend enough on public education.”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

A new report by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Economic Policy Center details the current prison capacity quandary and the massive capacity shortages Washington is facing in the next ten years. Steady population growth and tougher sentencing laws have added pressure to the already-saturated prison system, which has led to criminals being released early. Without immediate action on the part of legislators, the state can expect a shortfall of 4,077 prison beds by 2017.

The shortages are endangering the safety of inmates, staff, and neighboring communities. The state’s prisons have an operational capacity of 14,440 beds, but the actual number of prisoners in these facilities stands at 15,552—meaning the system is stretched to 107.7 percent capacity. The shortage has reached hazardous levels at some facilities, such as the Washington Corrections Center, currently at 152.3 percent capacity. In addition, the state has to rent nearly 1,600 beds from out-of-state facilities or county jails to house the remaining offender population.

Key recommendations include:

• Renting additional beds from Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) as a short-term solution to the immediate problem of overcrowding.• Considering the construction of private prisons to reduce long- term costs.• Privatizing some state-run facilities and county jails to conserve funds.• Funding re-entry programs identifi ed by the Washington Institute for Public Policy that have proven to be effective rehabilitative tools, to reduce the recidivism rate and subsequently lower the demand for new prison space.

T O R E A D T H E R E P O R T I N I T S E N T I R E T Y , V I S I T W W W . E F F W A . O R G / D O C

The report identifi es four major obstacles facing Washington’s prison system:

• Overcrowding• Augmenting costs of confi nement and treatment• High rate of recidivism• Sanctions for community correction violators

With a $700 million annual budget, nearly 18,000 inmates and 26,000 offenders on community supervision, there is no simple or fast way to address system wide prob-lems. However, lawmakers can be expected to respond effi ciently and effectively to agency concerns and to fund facilities and programs that prioritize public safety.

Various short- and long-term policy alternatives and best practices are explored in the report to aid in the resolution of the four problems identifi ed.

by Jason MercierBudget Transparency One Step Closer

D espite the fact the legislature failed to hold hearings on

common sense budget transparency reform bills (HB 1834 and HB 2342), all was not lost in the battle for making budget details more available to the public.

Along with our work with supportive legislators on this issue, we also encouraged the state s̓ budget offi ce, the Offi ce of Financial Management (OFM), to create a user-friendly budget performance website. We are happy to report that in March, OFM launched a “State Government Performance Information” website based on EFF s̓ recommendations.

Among the information included on the website are agency strategic plans, activity indexes, performance progress reports, performance assessments and details on Governor Gregoire s̓ Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP) project.

The website s̓ “Performance Resources” page includes links suggested by EFF to relevant budget information including audit reports and the state s̓ priorities of government.

While this is a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to improve the transparency of state spending and its performance. To continue this fi ght, EFF joined the national “Show Me the Spending” Coalition in April. The coalition is working “to bring user-friendly state spending databases to a computer near you.” Details on this effort can be found at www.showmethespending.org.

Though the battle goes on, OFM s̓ willingness to launch the “State Government Performance Information” website is to be commended. If you also support this effort to improve state performance transparency, click over to www.ofm.wa.gov/performance and tell OFM thanks!

From: Showman, Jeffrey (OFM) Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:50 AM

To: Jason MercierCc: McGuire, Lynne (OFM)Subject: RE: OFM performance websiteJason,

I hope youʼre as pleased as I am that your idea for a performance

information portal is now live on the OFM web site at:

www.showmethespending.org The fi rst page provides a brief explanation of different performance

information. Weʼve created a new page to explain and collect completed

performance assessments. Finally, most of the web links you suggested

are included under “performance resources.”

Thanks again for the good idea, and please let me know if you have

any comments. Sincerely,

Jeffrey ShowmanBudget Assistant to the Governor, Performance Assessments

N E W R E P O R T O N S O L V I N G W A S H I N G T O N ’ S P R I S O N S H O R T F A L L

8 LIVING LIBERTY

recent Gallup poll found only 41 percent of respondents approved of President Bush s̓ han-

dling of the economy; 55 percent who disapproved. Such a question would make sense, of course, only if the Unit-ed States were a centrally planned dictatorship. In a free society, the less the president handles the economy the better off we are.

Because polls reflect perception rather than reality, the suspicion arises that many people wrongly believe the U.S. economy is in bad shape because that is what they keep hearing on TV or reading in the newspapers. And because a presidential election looms, partisans are sure to exaggerate the economic performance of the Clinton years to stir up discontent with the present.

Politics being what it is (a spectator sport), partisans

can t̓ resist attributing economic outcomes to the White House, rather than to the efforts of millions of business managers, workers and investors responding to incen-tives. In this spirit, Bill Sammon, a frequent guest on Fox News, set up a provocative duel at examiner.com between White House spokesman Tony Fratto and Gene Sperling, former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and current adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton. As might be expected, both contestants were not entirely candid.

Mr. Fratto plausibly complained that the mainstream media have displayed a “double standard” by ignoring or denying visible economic progress under Mr. Bush while puffing-up the economic conditions during Mr. Clinton s̓ presidency. “If you go back to this point in the Clinton expansion,” Mr. Fratto said, “they would have loved to have seen the numbers that we have right now. On the unemployment rate, we r̓e a full percentage point below where they were at the same point in the expansion -- 60 or 61 months in.”

“That s̓ a rather absurd claim,” replied Mr. Sperling. “In terms of job creation, in terms of wage growth, in terms of business investment, in terms of poverty, there s̓ abso-lutely no comparison.” There is a comparison, though he may not want it made.

The article listed “dueling data points” from the Bush Camp and Clinton Camp. The Bush Camp said: “Real

wages rose 1.8 percent over the 12 months through Feb-ruary. This is substantially faster than the average rate of wage growth in the late 1990s.” How do the last 12 months relate to some unspecified years during the late 1990s? Would it not be more honest to compare several years at a similar stage of expansion?

What years should we compare? It would be dishonest to include the 2001 recession in this duel, because Mr. Clinton s̓ first term began two years after a recession had ended. Yet the Clinton Camp does just that by boasting that “under Clinton, the economy created 3 times more jobs after 74 months than it did over the same period of time under Bush.”

The umpire calls a foul. A recession that began in March 2001 had nothing to do with Mr. Bush taking of-

fice the previous month, but it had a lot to do with job growth in 2001 and 2002. President Clinton took office two years after the previous recession ended in February 1991. The economy grew 3.2 percent in 1992.

The Bush Camp boasts that “since the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth has averaged 2.8 percent.” Starting with early 2001 is still unfair, regardless of which camp does it. Cyclical weakness in employment growth from 2001 through mid-2003 resulted in more output relative to the few hours worked, otherwise known as increased productivity.

Were it not for the political spin, it would be more rea-sonable to compare the first year of recovery in 2002 with the first year of recovery in 1992. Mr. Fratto thus compared “this point in the Clinton expansion” to a period that began 60 months ago -- in early 2002. But such a comparable starting point in the Clinton expan-sion would actually have begun in late 1991, when Mr. Clinton was not in office.

In terms of equivalent starting points, it makes sense to compare 1993-1996 with 2003-2006 -- two cyclically similar periods of equal duration.

Growth of real gross domestic product (GDP) in those periods was identical, at 3.23 percent a year. That s̓ a tie. Nearly all other measures favor the last four years over Mr. Clinton s̓ first term. Unemployment was 5.3 percent

by Alan Reynolds Economies Then and Now

from 2003 to 2006, but 6 percent from 1993 to 1996. Mr. Sperling mentioned business investment to avoid mentioning housing invest-ment. Yet business fixed investment was 10.9 percent of GDP from 2003 to 2006, compared with 9.2 percent of GDP from 1993 to 1996.

On inflation, Mr. Bush faced a huge increase in world-wide oil prices that Mr. Clinton did not. In the consumer price index that excludes energy prices, inflation aver-aged 2.1 percent in the last four years, down from 2.9 percent in 1993-96.

When calculating real incomes, however, nominal in-creases in wages and benefits are reduced by total infla-tion, including higher energy prices. This would seem to put the last four years at a big disadvantage, given the spike in energy prices. Yet it turns out “wage growth” in the first Clinton term was nothing to brag about.

Even after including benefits, real compensation per hour fell by 0.5 percent in 1993, by 0.4 percent in 1994 and by another 0.3 percent in 1995. Real hourly wages and benefits increased by 1.2 percent a year from 2003 to 2006, but fell by 0.1 percent a year from 1993 to 1996.

The Clinton Camp should be as reluctant to mention poverty rates as it was foolish to mention wage growth. Yet its dueling data point dares to say: “During the Bush years, the number of Americans below the poverty line has increased by 5.37 million, while under Clinton the number fell by 7.68 million.” That blames Mr. Bush for the 2001 recession, compares eight years with six and measures poverty in terms of change rather than levels. Despite such tricks, it still doesn t̓ work.

The percentage of families below the poverty line was reduced from 12.3 percent in 1993 to 11 percent in 1996 -- progress of sorts. Yet fewer than 10 percent of families were poor from 2002 to 2005 (the latest available). Un-less more poverty is better than less, this was another masochistic debating point.

The economy during the Clinton years became much stronger after 1997, when Al Gore or Netscape invented the Internet and the president signed a cut in the capital gains tax. Trying to use Mr. Clinton s̓ first four years to denigrate the last four years is a foolhardy game. People who live in glass houses should be more careful when tossing around big, bad economics statistics.

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Insti-tute and a nationally syndicated columnist. This article appeared in the Washington Times on April 15, 2007.

“A recession that began in March 2001 had nothing to do with Mr. Bush taking office the previous month, but it had a lot to do with job growth in 2001 and 2002.”

by Edwin J. Feulner, Ph. D. Unbalancing act: Congress’ spending plans don’t add up

W hether you filed your taxes early last month or you are a member of the last-minute crowd, let

me ask: Are your taxes too low?Chances are, you said no. But Congress must not agree.

Because under the budget resolutions recently passed by the House and Senate, you can expect your taxes to go up -- and by quite a bit. Lawmakers approved bills that would repeal tax relief, increase spending and blithely ignore the biggest fiscal challenge facing our country.

These are the first budget documents produced by Democrats since they regained control of both chambers in November. The bills still have to go through a confer-ence committee to settle on a single piece of legislation to be delivered to President Bush. But let s̓ take a closer look at what lawmakers have wrought so far.

Both bills project that tax revenues over the next five years will go up. Fair enough: Revenues have increased in the last five years, as a direct result of the supply-side cuts in tax rates that the president advocated -- rates that are set to start rising soon.

Look closer, though. The numbers used in these bills are almost identical to what the Congressional Budget Office estimates revenues will be if the tax rates are al-lowed to rise and if the Alternative Minimum Tax isn t̓

fixed. (The AMT is expected to take a bite out of the pocketbooks of 19 million American households this year.)

This amounts to a massive tax increase. Under the Senate bill, the average household s̓ taxes would jump $2,641 each year over the next decade.

And here s̓ a word to the wise: If this budget passes, it might be smart to plan to hire a food taster in 2010. The death tax, which has been gradually reduced in re-cent years, goes away completely for that one year. But if lawmakers don t̓ make its repeal permanent, the death tax is set to come back in full force in 2011. Die at the “wrong time,” and your family could get hit with a crip-pling tax bill.

The Senate budget also calls for $18 billion more in non-emergency discretionary spending than the presi-dent proposed in his budget. That s̓ almost a 9 percent increase in just one year. It s̓ safe to say that few Ameri-cans enjoyed a 9 percent raise last year. The House ver-sion aims to boost discretionary spending by an addi-tional $69 billion over five years.

And then there s̓ that elephant in the room ignored by both the House and the Senate: entitlement programs.

Beginning next year, the first baby boomers will become eligible for early Social Security benefits. In the decades ahead, 77 million people will retire to Social Security and Medicare. Yet no money has been set aside to pay for the benefits.

That means the cost of these pro-grams is on pace to leap from 8.7 percent of GDP to 19 percent by 2050. But to manage that, we d̓ have to raise taxes by $11,651 per household (adjusted for inflation and rising incomes) or eliminate every other government program.

A responsible federal budget would start preparing for this coming storm while there s̓ still time to tame it. But the bills our lawmakers passed are decidedly irrespon-sible.

The president should veto this budget. Then he and Congress can get serious about crafting one that holds down taxes and spending -- and prepares for the future.

Ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation. Article first appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times.

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

n January 11, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent the text of his Annual Message to Congress.

Under normal conditions, he would have delivered the message in person that evening at the Capitol. But he was recovering from the fl u, and his doctor advised him not to leave the White House. So he delivered it as a fi reside chat to the American people. It has been called the greatest speech of the century by Cass Sunstein, a prominent liberal law professor at the University of Chicago. It is an important speech because it is probably the most far-reaching attempt by an American president to legitimize the administrative or welfare state, based on the idea that government must guarantee social and economic security for all.

Thirty-seven years later, in his First Inaugural Address on January 20, 1981, President Ronald Reagan would deny that government could provide such a broad guarantee of security in a manner consistent with the protection of American liberty. Indeed, he would insist that bureaucratic government had become a danger to the survival of our freedom. In looking at the differences between the views of Roosevelt and Reagan, we can discern the distinction between a constitutional regime—in which the power of government is limited so as to enable the people to rule—and an administrative state, which presupposes the rule of a bureaucratic or intellectual elite.

FDRʼs New Bill of RightsWhen Roosevelt spoke to the nation that January night,

he was looking beyond the end of World War II. In recent years, he said,

Americans have joined with like-minded people in order to defend ourselves in a world that has been gravely threatened with gangster rule. But I do not think that any of us Americans can be content with mere survival. Sacrifi ces that we and our Allies are making impose upon us all a sacred obligation to see to it that out of this war we and our children will gain something better than mere survival.

And what was this “sacred obligation?” Roosevelt continued:

The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for each nation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up in one word: Security. And that means not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security—in a family of Nations.

Government has a sacred duty, in other words, to provide security as a fundamental human right.

Roosevelt was well aware that this was a departure from the traditional understanding of the role of American government:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all...

Among these new rights, Roosevelt said, are “The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.”

The Constitution had established a limited government which presupposed an autonomous civil society and a free economy. But such freedom had led inevitably to social inequality, which in Roosevelt s̓ view had made Americans insecure in a way that was unacceptable. He had lost faith in the older constitutional principle of limited government. Rather, he thought that the protection of political rights—or of social and economic liberty, exercised by individuals unregulated by government—had made it impossible to establish a foundation for social justice, i.e., what he called “equality in the pursuit of happiness.” He assumed that a fundamental tension exists between equality and liberty that can only be resolved by a powerful, even unlimited, administrative or welfare state.

Rejecting the FoundersThe American founders, by contrast, thought that

equality and liberty were perfectly compatible—indeed, that they were opposite sides of the same coin. The principle of natural equality had been set forth in the Declaration of Independence, which clearly spelled out the way in which all human beings are the same: They

are equally endowed with natural and inalienable rights. But along with this similarity, the Founders knew that differences are sown into human nature: some people are smarter, some are stronger, some are more beautiful, some are musically inclined while others have a predilection for business, etc. Political equality, which requires the protection of individual rights, produces social inequality (or unequal achievement) precisely because of these unequal natural faculties. The preservation of freedom, therefore, in the Foundersʼ view, requires a defense of private property, understood in terms of the protection

of the individual citizen s̓ rights of conscience, opinion, self-interest and labor. They thought that a constitutional order, by separating church and state, government and civil society, and the public and private sphere, makes it possible to reconcile equality and liberty in a reasonable way that is compatible with the nature of man. Thus the Constitution limits the power of government to the protection of natural rights.

Roosevelt and his fellow progressives rejected the idea of natural differences between men, insisting that those differences arise only out of social and economic inequality. As a result, they redefi ned the idea of freedom, divorcing it from the idea of individual rights and identifying it instead with the idea of security. It was in the cause of this new understanding of freedom that America s̓ constitutional form of limited government was gradually replaced—beginning with the New Deal and culminating in the late 1960s and 1970s—by an administrative or welfare state.

Roosevelt had made it clear, even before he was elected president, that government had a new and different role to play in American life than that assigned to it by the Constitution. In an October 1932 radio address, he stated: “...I have...described the spirit of my program as a ʻnew deal,̓ which is plain English for a changed concept of the

Continued on page 10

Roosevelt’s or Reagan’s America? A Time for Choosing

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on January 29, 2007, during a seminar on the topic, “America s̓ Entitlement Society,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.

by John Marini

Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain are equally endowed with natural and inalienable rights.

“Political equality, which requires the protection of individual rights,

produces social inequality (or unequal achievement) precisely

because of these unequal natural faculties. The preservation of

freedom, therefore, in the Founders’ view, requires a defense of private

property, understood in terms of the protection of the individual citizen’s

rights of conscience, opinion, self-interest and labor.”

10 LIVING LIBERTY

“Reagan made it clear that

centralized control of the economy and

society by the federal government could

not be accomplished without undermining individual rights and

establishing coercive and despotic

control.”

duty and responsibility of Government toward economic life.” In his view, selfish behavior on the part of individuals and corporations must give way to rational social action informed by a benevolent government and the organized intelligence of the bureaucracy. Consequently, the role of government was no longer the protection of the natural or political rights of individuals. The old constitutional distinction between government and society—or between the public and private spheres—as the ground of liberalism and a bulwark against political tyranny had created, in Roosevelt s̓ view, economic tyranny. To solve this, government itself would become a tool of benevolence working on behalf of the people.

This redefinition of the role of government carried with it a new understanding of the role of the American people. In Roosevelt s̓ Commonwealth Club address of 1932, he said:

The Declaration of Independence discusses the problem of government in terms of a contract...Under such

a contract, rulers were accorded power, and the people consented to that power on consideration that they be accorded certain rights. The task of statesmanship has always been the redefinition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order. New conditions impose new requirements upon government and those who conduct government.

But this idea of a compact between government and the people is contrary to both the Declaration of Independence

and the Constitution. Indeed, what links the Declaration and the Constitution is the idea of the people as autonomous and sovereign, and government as the people s̓ creation and servant. Jefferson, in the Declaration, clearly presented the relationship in this way: “to secure these [inalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...” Similarly, the Constitution begins by institutionalizing the authority of the people: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

In Roosevelt s̓ reinterpretation, on the other hand, government determines the conditions of social compact, thereby diminishing not only the authority of the Constitution but undermining the effective sovereignty of the people.

Reaganʼs Attempt to Turn the TideRonald Reagan addressed this problem of

sovereignty at some length in his First Inaugural, in which he observed famously: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” He was speaking specifically of the deep economic ills that plagued the nation at the time of his election. But he was also speaking about the growing power of a bureaucratic and intellectual elite. This elite, he argued, was undermining the capacity of the people to control what had become, in effect, an unelected government. Thus it was undermining self-government itself.

A time for choosing continued from page 9 . . .revolution ever known to humankind began with three simple words: ʻWe the People,̓ the revolutionary notion that the people grant government its rights, and not the other way around.” And in his Farewell Address to the nation, he said: “Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: ʻWe the People.̓ ” He never wavered in his insistence that modern government had become a problem, primarily because it sought to replace the people as central to the American constitutional order.

Like the Founders, Reagan understood human nature to be unchanging—and thus tyranny, like selfishness, to be a problem coeval with human life. Experience had taught the Founders to regard those who govern with the same degree of suspicion as those who are governed—equally subject to selfish or tyrannical opinions, passions, and interests. Consequently, they did not attempt to mandate the good society or social justice by legislation, because they doubted that it was humanly possible to do so. Rather they attempted to create a free society, in which the people themselves could determine the conditions necessary for the good life. By establishing a constitutional government of limited power, they placed their trust in the people.

Up or Down, Not Right or LeftThe political debate in America today is often

portrayed as being between progressives (or the political left) and reactionaries (or the political right), the former working for change on behalf of a glorious future and the latter resisting that change. Reagan denied these labels because they are based on the idea that human nature can be transformed such that government can bring about a perfect society. In his 1964 speech, he noted:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right. Well I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down—up to man s̓ age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In light of the differences between the ideas and policies of Roosevelt and Reagan, it is not surprising that political debates today are so bitter. Indeed, they resemble the religious quarrels that once convulsed western society. The progressive defenders of the bureaucratic state see government as the source of benevolence, the moral embodiment of the collective desire to bring about social justice as a practical reality. They believe that only mean-spirited reactionaries can object to a government whose purpose is to bring about this good end. Defenders of the older constitutionalism, meanwhile, see the bureaucratic state as increasingly tyrannical and destructive of inalienable rights.

Ironically, the American regime was the first to solve the problem of religion in politics. Religion, too, had sought to establish the just or good society—the city of God—upon earth. But as the Founders knew, this attempt had simply led to various forms of clerical tyranny. Under the American Constitution, individuals would have religious liberty but churches would not have the power to enforce their claims on behalf of the good life. Today, with the replacement of limited government constitutionalism by an administrative state, we see the emergence of a new form of elite, seeking to establish a new form of perfect justice. But as the Founders and Reagan understood, in the absence of angels governing men, or men becoming angels, limited government remains the most reasonable and just form of human government.

John Marini a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu.

The perceived failure of the U.S. economy during the Great Depression had provided the occasion for expanding the role of the federal government in administering the private sector. Reagan insisted in 1981 that government had proved itself incapable of solving the problems of the economy or of society. As for the relationship between the people and the government, Reagan did not view it, as Roosevelt had, in terms of the people consenting to the government on the condition that government grant them certain rights. Rather, he insisted:

We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

In Reagan s̓ view it was the individual, not government, who was to be credited with producing the things of greatest value in America:

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth.

And it was the lack of trust in the people which posed the greatest danger to freedom:

...weʼve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Reagan had been long convinced that the continued growth of the bureaucratic state could lead to the loss of freedom. In his famous 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing,” delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater, he had said:

...it doesn t̓ require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Reagan made it clear that centralized control of the economy and society by the federal government could not be accomplished without undermining individual rights and establishing coercive and despotic control.

...“the full power of centralized government” was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don t̓ control things. A government can t̓ control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Over the next 15 years, Reagan succeeded in mobilizing a powerful sentiment against the excesses of big government. In doing so, he revived the debate over the importance of limited government for the preservation of a free society. And his theme would remain constant throughout his presidency. In his final State of the Union message, Reagan proclaimed “that the most exciting

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 11

Yes, I WANT TO INVEST IN THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION.

Dear Friend of EFF,

While we welcome every gift, our greatest need is reliable monthly support. It is imperative for reaching our goals. Please consider monthly giving as a way to invest in the cause of freedom. Our secure e-Giving System ensures that more of your contribution goes directly to our work.

Cordially,

Please mail or fax in this form (fax 360-352-1874) or call 360-956-3482. We will send you a confi rmation letter for your records.

Your Donations to EFF are Tax Deductible!

Bank Debit/Credit Card Donation Authorization I request my bank or credit card company to transfer funds in the amount of $ each monthuntil further notice. I understand that I am in full control of my donation, and that I can decide to make any changes or discontinue the service at any time by calling 360-956-3482 or writing to EFF.

Signature Date(required for bank and credit card donations)

Checking Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided check)

Savings Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided deposit slip)

Please indicate your preferred withdrawal date: 1st 10th 20th

VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMERICAN EXPRESS

Credit card # Expiration date:

Personal Information

Name Company

Address City, State, Zip

Phone E-mail

...BECAUSE FREEDOM MATTERS!

I would like to give a one time gift of $

Out of the Box: Innovations in Education is a multi-media

production of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Through

fi lm, radio and print, Out of the Box will highlight outstanding

programs in education that are getting great results using

innovative methods to bring out the best in our kids. For

More information, email Steve at smaggi@effwa.org.

Coming Soon...Out of the Box

12 LIVING LIBERTY

his workshop is for any EFF member who wants to know how to make plans to protect hard-earned assets

now as well as when the end of life comes. Perhaps you have never gotten around to doing this. Maybe you have crafted a plan, but it needs a tune-up. Perhaps you turned your estate planning over to someone else to decide, and now you are unsure if you made the best choices.

• Protecting our assets against unnecessary taxes (espe-cially the death tax).

• Ways to involve our loved ones to avoid potential dis-agreements.

• How to consolidate our most important life values and translate those values into our estate planning.

• Choosing the most appropriate tools for our particular situation.

• Where to get help.

Please feel free to bring your attorney or any other pro-fessional you may have already hired or are considering hiring. No services are sold at this workshop. No one will ask you to sign up for anything.

We are very careful about who we recommend in the area of planned giving. We have heard many horror stories. The experts you will be hearing from on May 17 are well known and highly regarded in their fi eld. Bill Larson and Alan Pratt are Washington state natives with deep roots in their com-munities. And they love liberty!

Additionally, we have asked two representatives of donor-advised trusts to join us in the afternoon. They will give us a picture of the different types of vehicles we can use to distribute our assets, if that s̓ the route we choose. Many marvelous options exist.

It will be a day full of great information and good conversation, too.

Please consider joining us.

May 17, 2007 Seattle, WA

9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Seminar (Lunch served)

5:30 p.m. Dinner (Optional)

p l e a s e j o i n u s F O R t h ep l e a s e j o i n u s F O R t h e

P l a n n i n g f o r L i f e

T

P l a n n i n g f o r L i f e

Topics that will be addressed include:

Attendance is limited to 50 people.

Irene Endicott206.718.6566IEndicott@effwa.org

Bob Williams360.956.3482BWilliams@effwa.org

For more information, contact:

Save the Date!