Mount Virtus

You mean there isn’t a Democrat “surge” in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West? Our state isn’t turning purple? Sshh, Stuart Rothenburg. You’re supposed to let our Democrats continue to operate under the delusion that they’re on the verge of a major political realignment, rather than the beneficiary of a confluence of fortunate events in the past couple elections.

With Ritter, Romanoff, and the Democrats already overplaying their hand, the pendulum has started swinging back where it belongs. In the meantime, let’s hope the damage is minimal.

Cross posted at Political Avalanche

A topic not broached on Colorado’s left-of-center blogs (for obvious reasons) is the great Democrat payback of “narrow interest” groups – read labor unions – who helped to buy them their majorities (measuring in the millions of dollars). First case in point: House Bill 1072 on a fast track through the state legislature. What does HB 1072 do? It takes away workers’ rights.

Yes, some – the House Republicans and their Golden Anvil Award & the Chamber of Commerce – have also pointed out the likely negative effect it will have on the state’s business climate. But the more fundamental problem, as highlighted by the editors of the Rocky Mountain News, is that HB 1072 is a “blow to liberty.”

Republicans and other pro-business and/or pro-liberty types who bought Bill Ritter’s line during last year’s election must be ready to rip out their hair at the Governor’s repeated indications that he plans to sign the legislation.

In the interests of the people of Colorado? In the interests of union bosses who believe that coercion is the only way to compensate for declining membership, perhaps, but not the workers whose rights are being stepped on.

You know that Ritter isn’t governing in a way “that serves all the people” when the Denver Post is screaming to kill HB 1072 because it’s moving too quickly through the process.

I’m guessing in the end enough Democrats will come to their political senses to put this bad bill to bed, judging by the threats from the state’s shocked and angered business interests:

Should Ritter sign the measure, some business leaders are discussing putting a right-to-work amendment on the November ballot that essentially erases the gains unions might achieve.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: union coercion & economic counter-development are what you get when the Democrats hold all the reins of government. I can’t wait to hear about the inevitable tax increase.

Cross posted at Political Avalanche

This one was an easy choice – we can’t afford not to achieve success in Iraq, and we can’t afford to empower the anti-U.S. terrorist thugs in the region. Sign the pledge, and help give some Senators a backbone.

Over at Edspresso, one of the very best edublogs out there, is my new column on last month’s national report calling for a drastic overhaul of the K-12 public education system and a well-attended meeting last week in Denver to promote its findings. Colorado is at the forefront of this conversation, and appears to be most serious about studying the proposals, discussing them, and working toward implementation.

Anyone interested in the future of Colorado or national education policy – students, parents, and teachers – would do well to familiarize themselves with the basic ideas that already have started to be debated here.

The Rocky Mountain Alliance welcomes its first addition in a long time: we are very honored to be joined by my internationally-respected think tank colleague David Kopel, Independence Institute research director and Second Amendment Project director. For all the best analysis on gun laws and related issues, check out Kopel’s Corner.

Also, our good friend and Alliance member Jim has switched domains. Visit Thinking Right’s new digs at www.thinking-right.com, and don’t forget to update your blogrolls.

As is standard practice on this blog, for the sake of transparency and integrity, I am willing to acknowledge factual mistakes that are made.

In the previous post I closed with a disclosure that said Independence Institute reports were under review by the Think Tank Review Project. I since have been informed that this specific claim is not correct, though the Institute fits the ideological profile of the think tank reports targeted by the union-funded Project. The larger point of the piece’s call for disclosure and transparency stands.

There’s nothing wrong per se with the Denver Post printing this guest opinion piece by Kevin Welner of the Think Tank Review Project. Writes Welner:

I co-direct a new project that reviews the quality of reports issued by such think tanks. We just finished our first year of reviews, and the results were awfully depressing. So to brighten our spirits, we decided to make lemonade by issuing the 2006 Bunkum Awards in Education.

The Bunkum Awards recognize and celebrate the dubious accomplishments of think-tank reports over the past year. In 2006, 13 such reports were reviewed by independent scholars commissioned by our Think Tank Review Project. These reviewers were asked to scrutinize the reports and write brief reviews for the project website.

What’s left out of the column is how notoriously one-sided is the Think Tank Review Project’s selection of reports. And no surprise there, for both the Post and the author fail to disclose that the Project is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, which is an extension of the National Education Association, the 2.7-million member teachers union. The Project focuses exclusively on “exposing” conservative and free market think tanks, with a special disdain for research that promotes choice and/or privatization in education.

Researcher Nancy Salvato highlighted the obvious problem with the Project in an April 2006 column for the American Chronicle:

Because of the source of their funding and the objects of their interest, one would have to be suspicious of this group’s motivation. Furthermore, sowing the idea that traditional think tanks have little credibility among academic researchers hoists another red flag about whose interests are being served by this project.

Any person who visits a think tank on the web can read the “about us” section to know what ideological agenda is being served, be it conservative or liberal. Although think tanks advance agendas, they certainly do not disguise their “ideological arguments” as research, as is suggested by co-director Kevin Welner, who because he heads the Education and Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has his own agenda.

It is laughable that Welner criticizes “think tanks” for an ideological bias, while his group accepts money from the NEA to discredit the very think tanks which discredit the education monopoly which serves the union. It is hard to believe his statement that, “The project’s reviewers are independent scholars who probably do not know the source of the project’s funding and are not pressured by the Great Lakes Center.” The grand unveiling of this project is so transparently disingenuous; it should be dismissed at a blink of an eye.

Maybe the Post‘s editors could ask Salvato or any one of literally dozens of qualified education experts to write a Sunday Perspective column to respond to the farce they published today.

But since that’s unlikely to happen, discriminating Colorado readers would be wise instead to peruse the columns of Linda Seebach, whose regular critiques of education reports are much more reasonable, insightful, and balanced. As excellent examples, look at a recent column assailing a report from the libertarian Cato Institute, another column criticizing a report from the center-right Fordham Foundation, and yesterday’s column dismantling a new Education Week report, a favorite source for many of the education establishment defenders in Colorado.

Time permitting, I’ll take a closer look at the actual claims made in today’s Post Perspective piece on education. But take Kevin Welner’s Think Tank Review Project seriously when he can’t even disclose the highly relevant interests of his funders? Bunkum, indeed.

Full disclosure: The author of this post and proprietor of this blog is employed by the Independence Institute, one of the think tanks under “review” by the Think Tank Review Project but sadly not recognized in the 2006 Bunkum Awards.

Put together, two columns in this Saturday’s Rocky Mountain News for Colorado political junkies, both signaling that having reached its nadir the center-right political movement in this state is on the rebound. In one, Peter Blake assures us that indeed Dick Wadhams is serious about taking the helm of the state Republican Party and committing to see it through the next election cycle:

So why did he agree when Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany asked him to consider the job? “It looked like a challenge that would be a lot of fun and I’m just dumb enough to think that there’s a great opportunity here too.”

And, of course, we know that there’s a lot more behind the decision than what Wadhams is generating for the press. Keep your chin up, GOP.

The other piece – David Kopel’s media review column – highlights how the liberal Denver media establishment is still busy trying to exaggerate and perpetuate divisions within the state Republican party (a close look at the background of the picture included with the article features a prominent local conservative blogger):

According to The Denver Post, former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer is “still seething” at former Gov. Bill Owens. This claim was made without a proper factual basis and, to make matters worse, the Post refuses to publish a correction or clarification.

We shouldn’t be surprised to see the Post try to bait Schaffer into saying something derogatory about the outgoing Republican governor. But Owens is out of the political picture now, and the party is focusing on the future (witness the Blake column). We have no laurels on which to rest, so there’s hardly room for complacency, but we don’t have to commit ourselves to despair, either.

Cross posted on Political Avalanche

The newly expanded Democrat power base in Denver stands poised to repay the union bosses who joined ultraliberal benefactors Tim Gill and Pat Stryker in helping to buy their recent elections. Introduced this week in the Colorado state legislature is House Bill 1072 by Democrat Rep. Michael Garcia, which would eliminate the requirement that a majority of workers has to cast a ballot to approve a union agreement to create a closed shop and collect agency fees.

That’s right: in other words, union bosses and their Democrat allies just want to assume the financial support of the average working man without even holding an honest election first. Of course, federal law as it stands now would supersede the state legislation, keeping the majority vote requirement in place. But Senator Ted Kennedy has attempted before to change federal law with “card-check” legislation, and can be fully expected to try it again.

“Card-check” legislation eliminates the secret ballot requirement for workers to accept union representation, and instead enables union organizers to employ subtle, coercive – and often deceitful – tactics to use workers’ signatures to their advantage. Workers may be pressured into signing a card supporting union representation, often misled into believing a signature merely calls for a secret ballot election.

Union bosses can use the arrangement to cajole employers into setting up a closed shop agreement requiring all workers on site to pay fees – including political contributions – to the union. Unfortunately, it often happens that the employer and the union boss cut a back-room deal at the expense of the working stiffs.

As jurisprudence stands now, workers can go through a lengthy, often arduous, and bureaucratic process to ask for the political money back from the union (and sometimes, even get it). Prior Supreme Court decisions (such as Abood and Beck) require that as a minimum protection. A favorable ruling from the 9 Justices in the Washington Education Association case might give dissenters some more hope, but such a ruling cannot be counted on to solve the problem.

Unions in Colorado are looking to solidify and expand their power headed into 2008 and beyond. The approval of House Bill 1072 in the state legislature (can Governor Ritter really be counted on to veto a bill that would line the pockets of some of his biggest contributors?), along with Ted Kennedy-style “card-check” legislation enacted through Congress, would spell trouble for the freedom of many individual workers in our great state.

If it happens, it’s called paying the price for giving the Democrats the reins of government.

Cross posted at Political Avalanche

In yesterday’s State of the State address, newly-minted Governor Bill Ritter’s remarks came with little suspense and offered no surprises. But supporters of freedom and parental choice may demand answers yet. Congratulations are to be given for the positive tone and the ambitious goals, such as cutting the dropout rate in half. But the general outline for how to get Colorado there is where some problems are going to arise.

First, what did he say? “We’re going to align our educational programs with today’s competitive global marketplace. We’re going to prepare our students for 21st century industries – 21st century opportunities – like renewable energy, aerospace and biomedicine.” Sounds like the preface to this new national report, which Speaker Romanoff has already said he will convene a task force to implement.

The question remains as to how this alignment is supposed to take place, for the issue of local school board control still remains. If 21st century skills are what our kids need – and I tend to believe that it is a lot of what they do need – why do you suppose the current system has done so little to effect change? A state fiat or mandate is not going to bring this about. Leave it to the power of the consumer and the marketplace to make the education system deliver its best quality at its greatest efficiency. (more…)

As I write, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the monumental First Amendment case Washington v Washington Education Association & Davenport v Washington Education Association. The 9 justices will determine whether the free speech rights of union bosses or individual workers take precedence, and much more. The Colorado Attorney General submitted an amicus brief in favor of the rights of states to set policies that require organizations to obtain members’ permission before using their money for political campaigns. As I wrote in the Rocky Mountain News a few months ago, this case indeed could have a bearing on Colorado.

I have blogged about this case before here and here. At the forefront of the cause of freedom in this case is the Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Washington state. They have set up a special Web site explaining the case with a frequently updated blog reporting on events from Washington, D.C., where they have gathered 30 teachers from different states to watch the proceedings and participate in a press conference with national media. Also, read this encouraging post at Constitutionally Correct from someone who participated in a moot court session with the Washington State Attorney General earlier this week.

Check the usual suspects, like SCOTUS Blog and Bench Memos, for more updates and analysis on the WEA case. Or simply do a Google News search for “Washington Education Association,” and watch the articles roll in. Stay tuned to this one, folks. The only thing left to wonder is what the Smart Guys will have to say about the case.

Five years of a love-hate relationship with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have passed now. The President’s number one domestic policy initiative that started out with such great intentions, when it came to fruition looked little like the original. Most of the school choice and flexibility in the bill disappeared.

Now, a sensible way to keep the beneficial accountability piece of NCLB without all the federal red tape, a way that empowers states, has emerged. Senators John Cornyn (R – TX) and Jim DeMint (R – SC) are sponsoring the A-Plus (Academic Partnerships Lead to Success) Act. What the bill essentially would do is give each state the choice to opt out of the NCLB regulations, and develop its own system to achieve educational success. The so-called “charter state” option would keep the performance standards in place, so expectations for student success would remain high, but with more flexibility and local control.

Opposition to NCLB comes from all corners of the political spectrum, including the National Education Association. The A-Plus Act sounds like a sensible, win-win proposition – which the cynic in me says gives it very little chance to pass through Congress in recognizable substance.

For more information on the proposal, you can read this brief but informative Heritage Foundation Backgrounder on the “Charter State Option.” Simply put, it’s one of the best education proposals to come out of Washington, DC, in a long time – precisely because it does something to take Washington’s hands off what and how the nation’s kids learn.

First of all, the break is over. I come back to blogging older (literally) and wiser (my wife may disagree), and ready for the trench warfare of Colorado politics that commences today – fully aware that our side is outnumbered in the local blogosphere but undaunted by the challenge.

Kudos to our new governor Bill Ritter. I wish him good health and personal happiness, though not so much political success. This blog will do its part to hold him to account and to make sure he and the legislature are doing what’s best for the people of Colorado, not special interest groups.

On Ritter’s big day, the Denver Post gives a little space to report that earlier rumors indeed were true: Dick Wadhams has his eyes on the state party chairmanship.

Lefty Wendy Norris over at Colorado Confidential wastes no time in assailing Wadhams for “his brutal slash-and-burn tactics against political journalists” and his penchant to work for “dull-witted candidates packaged as common guys.” (Translation? Lefties prefer conservative Republicans to be docile and mild-mannered, not crafty and wildly ambitious like themselves. Just when everything was going their way to perpetuate Democrat dominance in the Centennial State, the talented and successful Wadhams – dubbed “Rove 2.0″ – has put a little knot in their stomachs that’s sure to grow bigger over time.)

Republicans in this state would be crazy to reject the savvy Wadhams, unless they want to be relegated to the Country Clubs, Church Socials, and House & Senate Minority Offices for years to come. Of course, as I said before, leaning all the weight of political hopes & dreams on Wadhams is a recipe for disaster. His arrival may be a necessary, but certainly not sufficient, element of conservative GOP revival in Colorado. Time to roll up our sleeves.