Mount Virtus

Spelling geeks of the world, re-unite: The finals of the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee appears on network television tonight for the 2nd consecutive year. The 2006 edition must have been enough of a ratings success to bring back an event once confined to the popular shadows.

Returning for his fifth and final year of bee eligibility, 13-year-old Samir Patel of Fort Worth, Texas, occupies most of the spotlight with the expectations that this might finally be his year. By the same token, there are several top-notch spellers from the United States and Canada with a legitimate chance to win the 80th annual Scripps Howard event. For its part, the Rocky Mountain News focuses our attention on 14-year-old Maithreyi Gopalakrishnan, the Superior girl who represents Colorado’s hopes going into today.

Be sure to check out the official Bee Blog from a journalist stationed to cover today’s semifinal action and tonight’s final round. He has handicapped some of his favorites and has his eye on the latest happenings on the stage and behind the scenes. (Who would have ever imagined a day of live-blogging spelling bees? Great stuff.)

Yesterday at an Independence Institute women’s luncheon, State Sen. Nancy Spence told the crowd (including my wife and several other Institute colleagues) the latest on the investigation re the threatening email she received in April:

A state lawmaker who received an e-mail containing a threat to her grandchildren said Tuesday it was sent from a computer at a metro-area hotel.

Agents from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation reviewed the hotel’s security tape but couldn’t determine the e-mail’s author, said Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial.

The security tape had been improperly inserted, Spence said Tuesday at a political luncheon.

She has vowed to press charges if authorities catch the culprit, who was upset over an education matter at the Capitol.

“You touch my grandchildren, and I get really angry,” Spence told the Independence Institute’s women’s group.

I certainly hope this snafu won’t impede the CBI investigation to catch the person who sent the hateful, obnoxious email. Politics is an ugly enough business without someone using it to issue threats about an official’s children or grandchildren. Go get ‘em, CBI!

My big brother the police officer has been recognized for his heroism above and beyond the call of duty (please read the whole article):

A Jefferson County police officer is being hailed as a hero for going beyond the call of duty and saving the life of a woman trapped inside a sinking car.

Brad Degrow become a police officer for the excitement, but never expected a March call that brought an experience he never imagined.

“One of the things that drew me to this job,” Degrow said, “you never know what’s going to happen today or tomorrow.”

My brother is mostly embarrassed at all the attention, which is why it’s my job to shine a little more light on his heroic deed. The Colorado branch of the DeGrow clan are all proud of you, Brad!

Last week was National Police Week - let’s not take for granted the important work the good men and women in blue perform to help keep us safe.

Colorado, get ready for Hillarycare, Bill Ritter-style. The Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Healthcare Reform has narrowed its proposals for changing the state’s healthcare system down to four. As the Rocky Mountain News reports, all would bring increased taxes and government control:

“We’re disappointed,” Lin Zen-ser, of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, said at a news conference announcing the four plans. “They take away the freedoms of individuals and doctors.”

The presence of a lone dissenting voice on the commission was not enough to bring forward any proposals that would have promoted freedom:

Commissioner Linda Gorman, from the free-market Independence Institute in Golden, disagreed with the four selected plans, and said she doesn’t think anyone can estimate with any certainty how many Coloradans would still be uninsured. [Disclosure: Linda is my colleague at the Institute.]

One of the four proposals will be recommended for the state legislature to debate next January. Brace yourselves, fellow Coloradans.

In an opinion piece today for the Denver Post, two Republican state lawmakers - Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita, and Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Golden - recap the recent direction of education reform in the Colorado legislature. Among other things, they criticize the Democratic majority for enacting new detailed sex education standards (signed by Governor Ritter this week) while being unable to set even modest standards for math, science, and English proficiency (as I also wrote about many weeks ago):

It is not as though meaningful reforms weren’t proposed. Senate Bill 73, by Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Michael Garcia, D- Aurora, would have required students to be proficient in English to receive a Colorado diploma. And Senate Bill 131, which we sponsored, would have set graduation standards for math and science at four years and three years, respectively. While important first steps, both bills made only very modest demands of our public schools. After receiving broad bipartisan support in the Senate, both bills were dispatched on party-line votes in the House Education Committee, which is rapidly becoming a graveyard for common-sense education reform efforts. Rather than demanding more of our education system, the majority on this committee stubbornly defends an indefensible status quo.

Yet even as they were killing math, science and English measures, members of the House Education Committee initiated and won passage of House Bill 1292, which set forth detailed and graphic content standards for sex education.

Colorado’s kids deserve better. Students graduating from high school this year face an increasingly competitive global economy where math, science and communications skills are at a premium.

Job growth in technical fields outpaces overall job growth by a rate of four to one, with many new jobs heading overseas. By the end of the decade, it is projected that 90 percent of the world’s engineers will live in Asia.

Meanwhile, Mike Rosen in the Rocky Mountain News also highlights S.B. 73, the legislative effort to tie basic standards of English proficiency to high school graduation. Rosen reminds us who the characters are responsible for killing this bill and other commonsense legislation, and their reasons for doing so:

This is a smoke screen. What the educrats are really afraid of is being held accountable for results. Without testing, this requirement would be meaningless. Imagine the public outrage should people discover that an embarrassingly large percentage of would-be high school graduates can’t competently speak or write our language. What an indictment of our government school monopoly that would be, and what an invitation to school choice, competition and vouchers.

The ease with which this perfectly sensible bill was killed in the legislature is testimony to the death grip that the teachers’ unions have over education in our state. All four of the Democrats on the Senate Education Committee are current or former members of teachers unions. Of the eight Democrats on the House Education Committee, five come from the ranks of unionized teachers, one is the husband of a former teacher, and another was a winner of the Jeffco teachers union’s “Friend of Education Award.”

Penry and Witwer conclude by leaving the political hot potato in the governor’s corner:

As he considers these issues, [Democrat Governor Bill] Ritter would do well to learn from those who have made graduation standards a centerpiece of education reform. We need action, not just another blue-ribbon commission. We invite the governor to jump in to the fight for rigorous graduation standards for math, science and English. Without his political muscle, there’s little chance that real reform will survive the anti-reform gauntlet that is the House Education Committee. But if he will throw his support behind the efforts of a growing, bipartisan group of reform-minded lawmakers, Colorado can join the rest of the country in giving our kids the basic tools they need to compete in the emerging global economy. It’s a matter of priorities.

A serious one-two punch from Rosen and the young duo of Republican legislators this morning.

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog still ranks Colorado as the most competitive race in the upcoming round of U.S. Senate campaigns, but has noticed the recent encouraging news for Republicans:

Republicans (finally) have their man. Former Rep. Bob Schaffer quietly announced his candidacy last week and all indications are that he will have the Republican primary field to himself. Democrats quickly sought to portray Schaffer as a conservative extremist, citing as evidence some of the positions he advocated during his three terms in Congress in the late 1990s. There’s no question that Schaffer is more conservative than the average Colorado voter, but he also built up a grassroots following based on the “straight-shooter” reputation he maintained during his tenure in the House and before that in the state legislature.

Nevertheless, Cillizza also highlights the conventional wisdom surrounding Schaffer’s perceived political weakness:

In our mind, Schaffer’s biggest problem is fundraising. When he ran in the GOP Senate primary in 2006, he was never able to compete financially with beer magnate Pete Coors in the primary and wound up losing badly. Assuming the party is lined up behind him this time, Schaffer may benefit from a slew of national GOP money.

Even so, Colorado Conservative Project brings forward evidence that suggests Schaffer’s opponent, Boulder liberal Mark Udall, is hampered with his own financial management shortcomings. There’s certainly a long way to go in this race.

Cross posted at Schaffer v Udall

Tonight (Wednesday), Governor Bill Ritter will be taking questions in a live appearance on the Aaron Harber Show. Call 303-296-1253 starting at 8:00 p.m. to get in.

I’m sure you have something you’d like to ask. If not, you can probably find some fodder for questions here, here, here, here, here, and here. How about something along the lines of:

- If it’s so important to raise property taxes, why not ask the voters first?

- The Attorney General makes a strong case that you should ask the voters first. Why have you and your legal representatives not responded directly to any of his arguments?

- Should politicians and pundits be touting the tax increase as a boon for public schools, when there is no guarantee a single dime of extra revenue will fund them?

- Do you feel comfortable taking more than $1.7 billion in new taxes from Coloradans over the next 10 years on top of Referendum C, a record state budget, and only glowing promises for how the money will be spent?

As always, please be respectful and polite, though firm and clear. I would really like to hear our governor answer one or more of these questions.

I earlier advertised a new Colorado education blog. Here’s a better link to it than the one I provided.

I also mentioned my appearance on the Rightalk.com show Labor Pains. The 1-hour show runs on a loop between now and tomorrow (Thursday, 5/17) at noon local time. My segment is on during the last quarter hour, so tune in at 3:45 or 4:45 or 5:45, etc., if you just can’t get enough of my opinions and insights.

The Dead Governors tout a story about their heroic maverick Republican legislator Al White, who bucked the party line to support a tax increase without a vote of the people (an issue completely ignored in the posting and in the news story linked). White has enabled the Governor to hold forth his property tax hike as a “bipartisan” measure. And the Dead Guvs show no interest in taking a critical look at the piece they so enthusiastically quote. (Nor care to mention the Democrats who voted against it.)

The Dead Guvs’ silence is consistent with their own faulty usage of the phrase “property tax freeze,” which is inaccurate and an abuse of the English language - as I pointed out in a previous post.

Unprompted, I am glad to offer my own quick critique of the article and Rep. White’s statements. It boils down to this: In three ways, the article’s discussion of the tax-hike policy, and the opinions stated by its proponents, completely ignore the state constitution - 1) Amendment 23 already protects school funding; 2) Article IX already protects local school board control of instruction; and 3) TABOR simply calls for the voters to be asked first. Read the rest of this entry »

Readers who want to hear me share developments in Colorado labor policy and politics with a national audience, please tune in to Rightalk.com on Wednesday, May 16, 2:45-3:00 PM Eastern (12:45-1:00 PM Local). House Bill 1072, the Labor Peace Act, the coming Democratic Convention, Ritter’s executive order and other favors to union leaders are all fair game.

This may not be of interest to all my readers, but check out a new Colorado education blog with some diverse viewpoints and provocative thinking: Head First’s Schools for Tomorrow. And tell them Ben sent you.

Mike Littwin’s Saturday column for the Rocky Mountain News highlights the tenuous ground occupied by supporters of the governor’s official endorsement of the $1.7 billion+ property tax increase. Their best argument apparently is that some opponents mistakenly voted for a similar proposal three years earlier.

Meanwhile, Littwin typifies the rhetorical distortions made by the tax-and-spend crowd. (I omitted the partisan cheapshots that are standard fare for Littwin columns and not to be taken seriously, anyway. Instead, I wish to tackle some of the subtle and salient points about the issue itself that readers are supposed to accept at face value.)

1. The use of the term “property-tax freeze,” as though the change in law were going to stem declining tax revenues, is faulty. (The same error of terminology appeared in the Sunday perspective piece of the Denver Post’s less partisan, and usually more responsible, Fred Brown.)

My recent report for the Independence Institute debunks the fallacy of declining revenues. Meanwhile, nothing about taxes is being frozen when the new law is estimated to bring in more than $1.7 billion in new revenue over the next decade. The term “property tax-rate freeze” would be closer to precision, though not quite there. Proponents are finding it difficult to scratch around for a term that doesn’t reveal the law actually increases taxes.

2. Then there’s this:

In any case, [State Senator Steve] Johnson doesn’t oppose the bill in theory. But he says TABOR requires it to go before the people for a vote.

There’s an answer for that - coming from House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.

“It already did,” he says. “It did 175 times.”

And that’s without rounding up.

“In 175 of 178 schools districts, the people voted and said yes,” Romanoff says of districts that have voted to de-Bruce. “I’m not sure what part of the word yes Republicans don’t understand. Maybe they want a different answer. Maybe they want to keep voting until the voters say no.”

I guess you can’t blame the columnist for not reading the attorney general’s opinion that offers a clear and formidable argument against this facile and dubious claim, but Speaker Romanoff has had formal legal education. He should at least be willing to take on the argument.

It speaks volumes that Governor Bill Ritter and his merry band of tax-hike apologists would rather ignore the argument. They have to stake their ground on the claim that the 175 elections approved years ago by local voters for various local priorities gives the legislature and governor pre-approved, carte blanche authority to drastically change the property tax scheme for the purported rescue of a bloated state budget. Otherwise, it becomes transparent that they have arrogantly spat in taxpayers’ faces (which is why the Independence Institute is leading the charge to organize a lawsuit on behalf of the taxpayers).

And they’d still like to win elections, you know, even if it means keeping voters in the dark.

Is the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) a victim of its own salary-negotiating success? Why does the union that represents teachers in Denver Public Schools (DPS) not want to embrace how well it has done to increase compensation for its rank-and-file?

Because it’s time for DCTA to negotiate for even more money. As the Rocky Mountain News editors highlight today, the district’s teachers have not been shortchanged nearly as much as some have touted:

The district’s figures show a cumulative salary increase of more than 21 percent for teachers who will have worked for DPS for four years, from 2004-05 to 2007-08. To be blunt, that has come in part at the expense of other DPS unions (who have received 11.5 percent) and school principals and other administrators (8.4 percent).

Moreover, total teacher compensation has grown more than half again as fast as district revenues. Even the least financially sophisticated advocate has to recognize that as a recipe for long-term disaster.

But my question is this: What happened to the reform-minded DCTA that has worked so hard to help the district implement performance-based pay in ProComp? How hard are union officials pushing the rank-and-file to sign up for the innovative compensation system - which rewards teachers for taking on challenging assignments and raising student achievement?

I’m not going to defend all the actions of DPS administrators and bureaucrats, because they are far from perfect. But in this case, DCTA shouldn’t sell the students short of badly-needed reform. Nor should its leaders shy away from touting past successes.

Update: Yes, he’s in.  Key graf:

The race is on.

It looks like some of us - me included - jumped the gun on the Bob Schaffer announcement that he would be joining the U.S. Senate race for Colorado’s open seat in 2008. For reasons I explained in my previous post (as well as others), I’ve had a good sense that this announcement was inevitable. It’s just been a matter of timing. And the Coloradoan reports that Schaffer is expected to make an official announcement tonight at the Boulder County Lincoln Day Dinner.

And now the (not-so) serious debate begins: which is a better place to unveil your run for the Senate: Boulder County or Teller County? And why?

As usual, one of my favorite teacher friends - Michael at Best Destiny - makes some excellent big picture points about the state of public education, teachers unions, and the hard-working people in the classrooms. His post is a thoughtful follow-up to the story of the unsurprisingly biased Rocky Mountain High School (Fort Collins) math test reported at Face the State and covered here.

One point Michael makes is one I don’t make enough but needs to sink home with some:

The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, that, contrary to popular belief, teachers are not all Democrats. It has been my experience, having worked in 23 schools in my career (yes, I have an odd job description), that there are vastly more Republicans in the education profession than the general public believes there are, or than get represented by their unions’ activities….

The point is, and I have said it before, that when you talk in dismissive terms of “education”, please try, somehow, to draw a distinction between teachers’ unions–the heart and soul of Big Education–and teachers themselves. The former is one of the greatest impediments to properly educating our children; the latter are (largely) smart, dedicated, and creative servants of the public good.

Read the rest of this entry »

According to one Fort Collins high school math teacher, you can’t believe anything I say. If his opinion doesn’t bother you, then go ahead and read. My Independence Institute colleague Amy Oliver helped to uncover the story of the slanted Rocky Mountain High School math exam, which is covered this morning at Face the State:

RMHS is part of the Poudre School District; its teachers are members of the Poudre Education Association (PEA). The Colorado Supreme Court recently announced that it will hear arguments alleging that the PEA illegally campaigned for democrat candidate for state senate, Bob Bacon.

Faithful readers of this site may know something about that issue. For a refresher, here’s an op-ed I wrote last July after the state court of appeals found the PEA and Colorado Education Association had committed several election law violations. Here’s a key excerpt:

In essence, [Democrat Senator Bob] Bacon skirted campaign finance restrictions by outsourcing the costly services of volunteer recruitment and literature distribution to CEA and PEA. The CEA dispatched then-employee Ryan Wulff from CEA headquarters to Fort Collins in August 2004 to organize volunteers and to perform other duties to help elect Bacon. Records indicate that Wulff and Bacon had regular conversations about campaign activities.

Most significantly, Wulff and other union officials orchestrated the disbursement of thousands of Bacon for Senate leaflets at two October 2004 events: the “Great Pumpkin Rally” and “Halloween Hike.” The candidate personally attended both events and thanked the volunteers, which included non-PEA members.

At the Great Pumpkin Rally, volunteers received targeted lists of voter households and went out to knock on doors. If no one was at home, PEA’s instructions urged volunteers to write a message as from the candidate himself: “Sorry I missed you! Bob Bacon.” If asked questions, volunteers were instructed to say that Bacon himself would come by later to answer them.

PEA’s written instructions implied that important voter information was shared between PEA and the Bacon campaign.

In today’s Fort Collins Coloradoan, RMHS principal Tom Lopez has sought to explain away the recent math test revelation - saying there was a second version of the test that described Democrats as “liars.” There are several problems with this assertion:

1. No one has come forward with the alleged second version of the test.

2. In a previous recorded interview on the topic, the principal never mentioned the second version.

3. The teacher in question - identified by 850 KOA host Mike Rosen as Brian Mierzwa - is himself a registered Democrat voter, according to Face the State’s research.

Besides, would it really be better to impugn the integrity of voters registered with both political parties? From the RMHS point of view, yes - they can write it off as a case of general political cynicism rather than a case of blatant partisanship. The only thing is there’s no proof of the second exam. So in light of the already politically heated atmosphere in Fort Collins - thanks to the exposed activities of the teachers union - the explanation too closely resembles a convenient excuse.

Though not as dramatic in many ways, this case is somewhat reminiscent of last year’s Jay Bennish saga. The “pay no attention to us, leave us alone” attitude of some in the education establishment is further proof for the need to expand the power of parents and education consumers through greater choice and competition.

Colorado taxpayers should remember yesterday - May 9. Governor Bill Ritter signed S.B. 199, which includes a huge property tax increase. He refused to ask for a vote of the people. He stuck a finger in your eye. Have we so soon forgotten Referendum C? It’s little more than arrogance, sheer arrogance, my friends.

More:

- Rocky Mountain News: “Plain and simple, TABOR says all tax increases have to go before a vote of the people,” Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, said in a release Wednesday.

“Those in charge at the Capitol very easily could have asked first before hiking property taxes,” said Caldara.

“Instead, they’ve thumbed their noses at the voters and the constitution.”

- Colorado Senate News: “It’s not clear if our new governor is more naive or stubborn in pushing ahead with this thing,” said Senate GOP leader Andy McElhany. “He is asking taxpayers for $1.7 billion over the next 10 years, only, he’s not asking for their permission.”

- Denver Post: Dick Wadhams, head of the state Republican Party, said GOP candidates will use the issue in the 2008 elections.

- Grand Junction Sentinel: Jon Caldara, president of the conservative Independence Institute think tank, told the Associated Press he plans to mount a constitutional challenge to the governor’s mill-levy freeze. He said Senate Bill 199 should go to voters under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

“This is basically fiscal date rape,” Caldara said. “This is about asking the people first.”

- Pueblo Chieftain: “This has absolutely nothing to do with the money, it has to do with asking voters before a tax increase,” Caldara said. “That’s the insult here. The idea that the state’s going to get $1.7 billion in the next decade without asking first is just an absolute affront to the citizens of Colorado.”

- Colorado Springs Gazette: What is unknown is what will happen to $41 million in new revenue that is not earmarked yet. The entire package soon may be targeted by a lawsuit from critics who say the bill is illegal.

Also, look for more at the Independence Institute website.

This development, reported today in the Rocky Mountain News, was a matter of inevitability. (Disclosure: As an Independence Institute employee, I knew the story was coming. Even if I weren’t, I would be convinced the course of action was necessary, but a result of regrettable circumstances.) Yes, the time has come to sue.

Even Governor Bill Ritter and the Democrats who arrogantly violated the state constitution and foisted the property tax increase on the people of Colorado had to know they’d be facing legal action. Of course, when liberal officials want to enact liberal policies in Colorado, they gladly prefer to face the courts rather than the people. As The Colorado Index frequently reminds us, the legal system works for Democratic interests.

My guess is the Dems didn’t want to face the people because they had a good clue that voters would reject the tax increase. The more they learn about the bill, soon to be signed by Ritter - such as, the money raised in the name of “the children” has no guarantee of going to fund schools or that the initial 10-year tax revenue increase projections of $1.74 billion figure to be low - the less they will like it. (On a side note, I’m sure they’re not too fond every time bloggers like me remind you about the inconvenient facts.)

Colorado taxpayers, don’t be overcome by anger. Just remember what happens when the Democrat Party is the majority at the State Capitol, learn what you can do to change that fact, and be prepared to take action in 2008.