Economic realities of local initiatives.

• Author: Binnings, Tom
• Position: THE ECONOMIST

In a year of populist agendas where Trump becomes the GOP nominee and Sanders posed a serious challenge to Clinton, it's fitting that numerous referenda and constitutional amendments are proposed for the November ballot. Most candidates attempt to change the economic landscape. Campaign promises to stop immigration, create "fair trade" barriers, make secondary education and health care "free," are consistent with the statewide initiatives to get on the November ballot - universal health care through Colorado Care and a minimum wage.

While it's good for states to experiment politically and economically so innovation emerges, I am cautious about Colorado Care and the proposed minimum wage. My primary opposition comes from the lack of active debate. I'm not opposed to direct democracy if legislatures refuse to act year after year having engaged in thoughtful deliberation.

Colorado Care is a lengthy initiative to change the constitution to reduce per capita costs of health care, improve access, enhance health care experiences, and give Coloradans the right to choose their primary provider. All of this for a mere 10 percent of our incomes, which might actually work when combined with other federal sources of health care funding. But retirees will also be paying 10 percent of their taxable income into the system, companies will pay 6.67 percent of wages, employees 3.33 percent, and the self-employed 10 percent. The cost burden will shift to retirees and small businesses, while the employed middle class will benefit.

The greatest problem is the economic contradiction found in the initiative. When demand increases, per capita costs do not necessarily decrease, unless there is excess capacity or economies of scale - neither of which are apparent in health care. Improved access by some under what will become more of a rationed system means less access and diminished care experi ence by others. The "right to choose" a primary provider is different from the ability to get primary providers to accept new patients. My greatest objection is the initiative fails to require personal accountability. There is no requirement that I change my behavior to lower my cost on the system. In fact, easier access allows me to abuse the system more.

As for minimum wage, it makes sense on...