THE EXPORT OF BEGGARS
FREELANCE FUNDRAISING AT RISK

Imagine getting on a bus in the morning and commuting an hour to earn money. By begging for change. That's what Leerie Tagney does a few times a week. Call him a freelance fundraiser. Tagney has become a bit of a well-known figure in Monument, where he stands near the end of an interstate exit ramp and asks for cash. He lives in Denver, but rides the Front Range Express (FREX) to his favorite begging spot. He stands at the end of an Interstate 25 exit ramp with a sign that suggests he needs help. It's a unique location simply because it's not subject to anti-begging regulation.

Tagney told The Gazette he hauls in about $25 an hour begging, and he makes no apologies for it. He's 71 years old and his sign says he's OLD-TIRED-SICK-HUNGRY CREATIVE BROKE.

Tagney commutes to Monument because he says the people there are successful and friendly. They're mostly Christian, and Christians are taught to give. More importantly, Monument has no laws against begging. And it should stay that way. In less charitable environments, people such as Tagney get harassed by police with a litany of rules and regulations designed to trip up freelance fundraisers.

Tagney's approach to generating income probably offends thousands who know his story. Citizens have clamored for anti-begging laws throughout the country. In most cities, including Colorado Springs, begging from ramps and/or medians has been outlawed. Politicians typically justify the new laws by claiming some concern about the safety of beggars, and drivers who may be distracted by them. No statistical data, however, supports the notion that begging for change endangers anyone. Common recreational activities - river rafting, rock climbing, bike riding, etc. - are far more dangerous.

Anti-begging laws are regulation based in emotion. Tagney, and others like him, make some drivers uncomfortable when they're waiting at red lights trying to avoid eye contact with the closest beggar. Others are annoyed at the idea some people achieve income without working real jobs. That's understandable, but people who cannot or will not work have always been with us. They always will be.

Despite many people's valid personal objections to beggars, they are well within their rights to solicit donations in public space. Politicians who try to stop them do so on questionable grounds. This is a country that prides itself on free speech, freedom of association, and the benefits of charity. Freedom of association means we're free to communicate with strangers in public. It also means we're free to ignore anyone and walk away. Nothing in the law says the government should guard our privacy in public. Americans don't have a constitutional right to silence in public. We don't have the right to a legal shield that protects us from offensive messages, or the sight of people we'd rather not see. Want privacy? Stay home, where private property rights provide for solitude.

Freelance beggars, such as Tagney, do nothing substantially different than the work of highly paid solicitors who raise funds for organizations such as United Way or Catholic Charities. They ask people to give for a cause they believe in. The cause: their own personal comfort and welfare. Beggars require nobody to give. It's merely a request that can be ignored. The welfare recipient, by contrast, accepts money confiscated from hard-working citizens by force, through taxation. We don't see the transaction on a street corner, so it's out of sight, out of mind.

Often, executives of professional charities advocate anti-begging laws. They claim to have the interests of the poor at heart, which may be the genuine motive of some. But they also advocate centralized begging, free from competition that results from sole proprietors working the streets. Laws that restrict the fundraising efforts of ragamuffins move us in the direction of monopolizing fundraising efforts for white collar beggars in suits.

Most street beggars aren't as clean, friendly and respectable as Tagney. Most, however, are equally harmless. They're individuals asking for handouts. They can easily be ignored. There shouldn't be laws that send them down the road.

BROKAW IS NO TIM RUSSERT

Gov. Bill Ritter thinks Barack Obama will win Colorado's Hispanic voters "hands down." He explained why Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press." But with Tom Brokaw moderating, the nation's rough-and-tumble hour of truth more resembled a weak episode of "The View." It was all fluff, no stuff.

Ritter explained that Hispanics will support Obama because "he has a language about education that really is about optimism. But it's also about reforming the system..."

It seems likely that Hispanic voters would be interested in improvements to public education. The Hispanic community exudes a general enthusiasm for the American Dream that may be among the greatest hopes for our country's future. But there's a problem with selecting a president on his education policy: Public education is a local concern. Ideally, it's a private concern. Brokaw didn't happen to mention the fact that local school boards, not American presidents, have historically decided how children learn.

The Bush administration's top-down edicts about public education have provided all the evidence we need that federal attempts to control the classroom aren't good. Called "No Child Left Behind," the Bush program has over-regulated public education and forced local school districts into a one-size-fits-all philosophy centered on test results. It rewards conformity and discourages innovative and entrepreneurial approaches to teaching children what they need to succeed in the world. It assumes that central government knows more about the needs of children in Colorado Springs than the local parents and elected school officials know.

If Hispanic voters support Obama, because he plans to fix education, they should read the 10th Amendment - another matter Brokaw failed to mention. It says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The constitution does not delegate to the president or any branch of federal government the power to control education. The framers knew that central control over complex matters - like the education of children living in a great variety of circumstances in locations with diverse attributes - would not go well. The central government cannot respond appropriately or swiftly to the unique educational needs of children born to Hispanic farm workers in Kansas, and the needs of wealthy Hispanic children in Houston.

Since Ritter mentioned Hispanics, Brokaw asked him what would happen in Colorado if all illegal immigrants were deported. Ritter explained that state reforms passed in 2006 made the state less appealing to immigrant workers, and that had "its impact on farms and ranches and hotels and the service industry."

Brokaw threw softballs throughout the discussion, which never went deep. They didn't talk about the inherent problems of federalized education. They didn't get into detail about the evils of immigration reforms that result in wasted food rotting in fields. Fluff. Period.

With interviews like this, on the country's premier political TV show, candidates will be able to promise that which they cannot and should not deliver. Meeting the press will be like meeting a friend for tea. Brokaw was fine at reciting the news, but he's no Tim Russert.