What's that he said? "It has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom." Was that President Barack Obama channeling the free-market economist Milton Friedman in Tuesday's inaugural address?

And then this: "Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control . . ." The two surprising but comforting words in that sentence are "expand freedom."

After all, most any liberal Democrat would acknowledge that markets generate wealth; by no means all, however, or perhaps even many, would agree that markets' power to expand freedom is "unmatched."

If the president really does appreciate that markets are uniquely powerful agents of freedom, as a man of his discernment should, it is a very good sign indeed.

Oh, there were several worrisome notes in his inaugural address - the dismissal of skeptics who doubt the wisdom of too many grand designs and the claim that arguments about the size of government are "stale" and "no longer apply," to cite just two examples. But let's save the negatives for another day. In the space of a year, Obama's speeches have evolved from often narrowly cast indictments of Republican policies that portrayed individual Americans as helpless victims of forces beyond their control, to nuanced arguments that call for aid to those who need it while insisting on a "new era of responsibility" for all.

Back then his speeches were all about breaking with the past. Now his oratory, while still promising dramatic change, proudly evokes the American past at seemingly every opportunity.

"We will not apologize for our way of life," said the newly minted president. Amen. And that should hold true no matter how determined we might be to see that way of life improve.

TABOR trouble

"There's a consensus that the constitution doesn't allow the legislature to deal with the issues facing the state."

- Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder

Well, perhaps not quite a consensus, Senator Heath. The 55 percent of Coloradans who voted against Amendment 59 just two months ago might take issue with your thesis. After all, they had a chance to lift some of those constitutional constraints. And yet they said no - emphatically.

Heath's comment appeared in a Denver Post article about a group of legislators who are exploring "what to do about TABOR" - meaning the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. That measure requires a public vote on any new taxes and also puts a cap on spending based upon population and inflation.

Politicians usually claim they wouldn't dream of fiddling with the public's right to vote on taxes. Why, that's so popular, the theory goes, it's practically sacrosanct.

Not that TABOR actually has anything to do with the present budget crisis. Referendum C in 2005 lifted TABOR's spending cap for five years (Amendment 59 would have lifted that cap for good.) And even if it was still in place, it wouldn't apply this year because of the collapse in incoming tax revenues.

"What to do about TABOR" is not, in other words, nearly the tricky or urgent riddle that some may suppose. Either let Ref C expire or go back to voters and ask them if they'll extend it, say, for another five or 10 years - and then try to run a better campaign than the one on behalf of 59.

Unless, of course, the anti- TABOR caucus really would like to take a crack at convincing the public to give up its right to vote on tax proposals. Why, just imagine the freedom the legislature would then enjoy to "deal with the issues facing the state."

You'd rather not? You cynic, you!

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.