Now that the election season is blessedly over, the US begins one of its great perennial intrigues – pardon season. A lame duck president has nothing to lose and is free to exercise his pardon privilege at will. This can reveal the true character of a president, and also his heretofore hidden views.

Bush Sr. pardoned a small crew of Reagan officials who were facing possible charges related to Iran-Contra. Bush was not particularly invested in the matter, having successfully claimed he was “out of the loop,” then a not unreasonable claim for a vice president. Bush revealed his inner view of the merits of the Iran-Contra affair and those who pursued it.

Likewise, Clinton pardoned a few of his White Water cronies, including Susan McDougal, showing his disdain for one of the many scandal investigations that dogged his presidency.

Clinton also pardoned Marc Rich, whose only recommendation for pardon was his connection to huge Democratic party donations through his wife Denise, including $700K to Hillary Clinton just prior to the pardon. Indeed, unlike other recipients of pardons, Rich never properly faced the justice system. Rich thumbed his nose at justice by living as a fugitive in Switzerland to avoid trial. Many apologists say Clinton was persecuted because of a sex scandal, but the Rich pardon proved he was a corrupt man who blatantly sold pardons to people who least deserved them.

President Bush has used his pardon privilege sparingly, indeed less than most any modern president. His pardon policy is a closed book that may soon open, and this blog offers some advice: pardon Martha Stewart and Tommy Chong.

Tommy Chong’s saga is the less famous of the two, but it shows an unacceptable abuse of government power. Chong spent eight months in prison for selling pipes that could be used to smoke all manner of substances, including marijuana. Chong was also forced to beg for lenience by denouncing the use of pot, a humiliation given his lifetime of advocacy to the contrary. In fairness to Bush, Chong’s investigation began under the Clinton administration and was well advanced by the time Bush took office. Bush was politically powerless to reverse such a project, and for procedural reasons he was bound to aggressively complete the prosecution. Still, Bush should correct the error by pardoning Chong.

The government’s only case was the potential that Chong’s glass pipes could be used to smoke pot; he was not charged with actually distributing the drug. The fact that something could be used for an illegal purpose among many other legal purposes is too weak an argument to be allowed in the government’s prosecutorial arsenal. Computers could be used to distribute terrorist instructions. Guns can be used to rob banks. The list is endless, which shows that Chong was targeted because of who he was and what he advocated. The government should be prevented from targeting individuals for their contrary opinions, and pardoning Chong is the best way to send this message.

Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to federal prosecutors during a failed prosecution of insider stock sales – the same crime for which Clinton was impeached and forced to surrender his law license. Stewart served 6 months in prison, and more importantly, is now a felon unable to run a publicly traded company. If Stewart had simply asserted her right to remain silent in the face of government questioning, she would not have been humiliated and professionally hobbled.

Stewart is a poster child for exercising the Fifth Amendment right. In the face of intense questioning, almost anyone, even the innocent, is likely to make contradictory statements or statements that can be interpreted as dishonest. Such misstatements are commonplace, but nonetheless give prosecutors a sword in the event their real investigation goes bust.

In fact, Stewart, like Chong, was targeted because she was a thorn in the side of government bureaucrats. Stewart refused to play their game, and in doing so, challenged the government’s power – her real crime. The government should not be allowed to target unsympathetic individuals for the sole purpose of demonstrating its iron fist. Both Stewart and Chong were punished far beyond the minimal harm they may have caused society, and that is a miscarriage of justice. President Bush should pardon both of them before leaving office.

On Nov. 4, Colorado voters will decide on a few ballot initiatives that include earmarks, Refs. 50 and 51. These amendments to the State Constitution are an ideal study in how leftists hide their agenda behind feel good measures and why earmarks are inherently lies on a grand scale.

Each of these referendums has a sweet and hopeful outer shell to mask its less appealing inner reality:

Ref. 50 would expand gambling to allow higher stakes and more entertaining games. Since gambling is essentially a tax on stupidity, and since taxing something always makes for less of that something, Ref. 50 should reduce the amount of stupidity in Colorado. Also, the lack of gambling options in Colorado simply drives customers of this business to Nevada. Still, to many people, gambling is a vice, an ugly indulgence that scars the character of great historical mountain towns.

In order to sell Ref. 50, its promoters knew just what button to press: ‘education.’ Even though Colorado passed a $6bln+ tax increase to fund ‘education,’ nothing has improved. Indeed, the US spends more per student on basic education than any other country, yet the results are middling at best. Still, politicians could sell forced amputations if they could tie them to ‘education.’

Ref. 51 would raise the state sales tax by 7%. Even though Colorado voters passed a $6bln tax increase just a few years ago, leftists always want more. Gov. Ritter illegally passed a huge property tax increase just last year, and supports a $300bln tax increase on energy production. Politicians will always want higher taxes to dole out favors to their friends and supporters.

Again, to sell Ref. 51, politicians sugar coated a big tax increase. The funds will go to provide health services for the disabled. There is a broad consensus in the US that the government should help people incapable of independence, so why has the Colorado government failed to provide this support before? The Colorado treasury is awash in tax revenues, yet can’t afford for popular social services. Gov. Ritter has wasted hundreds of millions on impractical environmental projects and other political giveaways. Rather than fund yet another tax increase voters should demand that Gov. Ritter set more realistic spending priorities.

Adding to the evils of these referendums is the fact that they will most likely not increase funding for their intended beneficiaries. Just as Ref. C was sold as an education tax increase, yet no new money went to those programs, Refs. 50 and 51 will not help education of the disabled.

Money is portable, or fungible, meaning it is hard to say where any particular dollar actually came from. While the new revenues from Refs. 50 and 51 will certainly go to education and the disabled, the general fund spending that used to support these causes is free to migrate to Gov. Ritter’s many far left causes. Indeed, the new flush of money to these popular programs will ease the transition of general funds money away from them, because most voters will assume that the programs are well funded thanks to the new tax increases.

Any tax increase, no matter how beautifully earmarked and packaged, will only support the pet projects of politicians. Only a restriction on overall spending and taxing, like TABOR, can keep the government in check.

Must voters who favor good education and services for the disabled also favor tax increases? No. The government has plenty of money, more than it deserves, yet it always wants more. The only solution is for voters to oppose tax increases. Goverment sob stories are always lies, and voters should say no to more earmarks and taxation.