Government Underground

I was recently asked the question “How is a state treasurer’s job political? Aren’t they bound by law and GAAP?” While I don’t claim to be an expert, here is my “two cents” for an answer.

The Colorado State Constitution establishes the elected office of treasurer as part of the Executive branch of our state government (Article IV, Sections 1 & 3). As described on its web site, the Colorado State Treasury is:

“…the constitutional custodian of the public’s funds. It is the Treasury’s duty to manage and account for the citizen’s tax dollars from the time they are received until the time they are disbursed. The Treasury’s staff is committed to safeguarding and managing the people’s monies with the same diligence and care as they do their own.

What the Treasury Does

The State Treasurer and her staff serve the citizens of Colorado by providing banking, investment, and accounting services for all funds and assets deposited in the Treasury. By continually optimizing cash flows and maximizing the return on the state’s investments, Treasurer Kennedy plays an important role in helping to minimize the tax burden on Coloradans.

The Department of the Treasury is organized into five different operating sections: Accounting, Investments, Cash Management, and Administration. The Treasurer is also responsible for managing the state’s unclaimed property division – The Great Colorado Payback.”

As the fiduciary for the people of the state of Colorado, I would submit that the criteria for election should be based upon expertise in finance, accounting, investments and operations. The Treasurer makes decisions as to when/how/where to invest the state’s money, manage cash flows, structure financing for state infrastructure projects, and account for all of the state’s finances. How can the state squeeze every basis point out of the Treasury by making good investments, hedging risk, managing money efficiently, etc? There should be a high bar for the level of investment and finance expertise required of a state Treasurer. Certainly the treasurer must work within state statues and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

In addition to strictly quantitative investment issues such as yield, credit quality, reinvestment risk, diversification, liquidity, etc., you also have potential political/social issues that may come into play such as do you adopt investment policies influenced things such as “green” strategies, social issues (apartheid, etc.), or other reasons? Some might respond that yes, this should be part of this elected position, while others (such as myself) would say no, that fiscal policy should trump political policy.

Closer to home, do you invest within Colorado to “support the local economy” or do you invest in other states where yields may be higher? While this could be described as a political policy question, a sophisticated approach would incorporate the expected financial impact of one decision over another, including the advantage of maintaining higher levels of capital within the state of Colorado vs. the potentially more efficient use of said capital placed out of state.

Should the Treasurer work to expand funding for schools by increasing taxes, expand health insurance coverage with new tobacco taxes, or push for TABOR time-outs like Referendum C, as current Treasurer Cary Kennedy boasts on the Colorado Treasury website? These are the political questions that should be evaluated when electing a state treasurer.

So, the treasurer has a financial and political impact upon how the state manages its money. Given that this is the case, it makes sense that it is an elected position.

However, I would end with the following questions (which I find myself asking of just about everything the government does these days): What is the state’s constitutional mandate and enumeration of powers for the responsibilities of the office of treasurer? Are our government officials acting within those constitutional restraints? Those are questions for another day…

The GAO has confirmed that we are WASTING $142,209,675 per year of our Colorado citizens’ money through the federal surface transportation program.

The GAO has identified Colorado as one of 27 “Donor” states that pay more in federal taxes and fees than they receive in federal-aid. No surprise there, since reports from ALEC show that Colorado gets $0.81 for every $1.00 we send to Washington.

The federal GAO published a report in March 2008 on ideas for restructuring the federal approach on surface transportation.  One of the ideas outlined was to “Turn Back” surface transportation programs and revenues to the states. Appendix III of the GAO report details the implications of this idea.

Bottom line: Turning back the surface transportation programs and revenues to Colorado would allow Colorado to manage these programs itself, without federal interference or funding, without the additional layer of federal government redundancy, spending the same amount of money as is currently being spent on surface transportation today and we would actually need to charge $.0457 less per gallon in taxes than the federal government is charging.

The fed tax is $0.184  per gallon. We only receive back from the federal government $0.1383 per gallon through current federal funding for surface transportation. We could either deliver the same programs we have today and charge Colorado citizens $0.0457 less per gallon for gas, or we could keep the additional $0.0457 per gallon of gas and use appropriately (reduce “fees”, enhance road maintenance, etc.) within the state’s constitutional limits, if any, for revenue attribution, etc.

To give you an idea of how much money this is, I looked at the state’s revenue from motor fuel in 2006-2007. It was $684,598,000. Doing a back of the envelope calculation assuming all gasoline (simplifying here) that would indicate that 3,111,809,091 gallons of gas were taxed in that year. 3,111,809,091 gallons x $0.0457 = $142,209,675 per year.

I think the GAO has come up with a good idea – perhaps we should take them up on it? This would be an excellent step toward reducing the unconstitutional burden that the federal government places upon the citizens of Colorado.

Government doesn’t create jobs.  Government cannot create jobs.  Anybody who says that “I want to be elected to office so that I can create jobs for the people” needs a remedial course in economics.

Government is by definition a drag, a friction, an impediment to the creation of jobs, wealth, or value. Government can only attain resources by taking them from people upon threat of force or incarceration (see the IRS, et al.) The money that government spends in the name of job creation is the same money that private business and entrepreneurs no longer have to spend that they could have created jobs with.

Colorado government takes its money from private citizens (we’ll leave the idea of the federal government creating money out of thin air, i.e., the deficit spending “stimulus” approach, for another day). When the government takes money from people, the people lose their money. In order for government to “create” a job it must take money from the private sector first. While the government may revel in its new found power to “create” a job with the money it took away from the people, the private sector has now lost that same amount of money with which it would have created private sector jobs.

Who’s Better at Creating Jobs?

So the question becomes, who do you think is better at creating jobs, products, value and wealth – government or private enterprise? Before you choose, consider this:

Government has no sensitivity to cost, has no sensitivity to price, has no threat of going out of business by putting out a bad product, has no competition who can lose money every year and simply raise more taxes to make up for it, and has no capital market discipline placed upon it because there is no competition or true market prices that provide any signals of value. None of the discipline of multiple market forces apply to the government. Government can create a bad product and not worry about going out of business. It can overspend because it doesn’t care if it loses money – it can simply raise more taxes (by threat of force/jail) or, if you’re the federal government, it can simply print more money. Look at this in a simple way through this table:

So back to the question: who do you think is better at creating jobs – government or private enterprise? The government which could care less whether it efficiently produces valuable products because it’s going to be in business forever regardless of results, or an entrepreneur whose ability to feed himself and his family is based upon successfully competing in the marketplace?

Government cannot “create” jobs because in order to provide a job it has to first destroy the private sector’s ability to create a job by robbing the private sector of some of its resources. That’s called opportunity cost.  When the opportunity cost is greater than the cost of a given project, you would be a fool do the project. So it is with the false idea of government job creation.

Economics 101

The fundamental premise of economics is that for every action you must look at the consequences of taking the action vs. not taking the action. The classic example is the story of the broken window. A vandal throws a brick through a window of the baker’s shop. People gather around and agree this is a shame. But then they conclude that the silver lining is that this will provide work for a glazier (guy who fixes broken windows). He’ll make $300 for fixing that window. They walk away consoled by the job creation that has occurred. (You can expand this example to the ridiculous notion that the destruction brought about by war somehow “creates” jobs and lifts economies out of recessions.) What the people don’t see is that the baker was planning on spending $300 for a new suit that week.  Now he’ll have to spend the $300 on the window instead.  The result is that the tailor just lost out on the $300 sale he was planning on making to the baker. The tailor is very sad about this because he was going to use that money to buy bread from the baker as well as new cloth, needles and thread to expand his business…

You get the idea. Every action has consequences. Things WILL happen as a result of an action that can be seen, but there are also things that WON’T happen as a result that will go unseen and so most people won’t realize that the consequence exists even though it is just as real.

In our case of job creation, the consequence that people see is the government job “creation” and the consequence that people do not see is the loss of the ability of the private sector to create a job. Since the private sector is better at creating a job because it must heed market forces or go out of business, the value of the unseen consequence – the opportunity cost – is greater than the value of the government “created” job. When the opportunity cost is greater than a project, the project is a NET LOSER. No one in their right mind would do a project that they know will create a permanent loss of value. Yet this is happening every day in the name of “job creation”.

So when I hear a candidate say, “Government needs to create jobs,” I know that candidate does not fundamentally understand economics or the government’s role in the economy.

Producers and Takers

Government is a taker and a re-distributor through taxes and fees. To be sure, there are services that the government should provide as specifically prescribed by our constitution. Everything else is over-reach that robs those people who are producers of their ability to create jobs, products, value and wealth. Government is also a drag on job creation through excess regulation that robs the private sector of money, time and resources that could have been more efficiently used by the private sector to create jobs, products, value and wealth instead of jumping through regulatory hoops.

The only thing that a candidate could honestly propose to help create jobs is to remove those barriers that rob the private sector of the ability to create its own jobs. Reducing the size, cost and burden of over-reaching government will help. Reducing excess regulation and bureaucracy will help. These are the things that will take money and resources out of the hands of inefficient government and put it back into the hands of the people who are the backbone of our state and our country. Over 85% of the jobs in Colorado are provided by small business. If Colorado government would quit robbing incredibly talented Coloradoans of their hard earned resources only to waste it on inefficient bloated government and instead allow our talented people to use it for themselves, our state would be a shining example of true job creation.

Empower the Producers, Limit the Takers

So the only way that politicians can help our economy or help our country to be more productive is by eliminating the drag on resources that government represents.  Eliminate the friction, the impediments, the barriers to creativity that government presents.  The first and foremost way of doing that is to reduce the size of our over-reaching government which has expanded far beyond its constitutional directives. Once the bloated expense of government is reduced, then that would naturally lead to the ability to reduce excess taxation and fees which take real capital away from the private sector. Finally, government can reduce other impediments to job creation by reducing its over-regulation. Companies are spending too much money, time and resources to comply with over-burdensome regulations. This robs our private sector of those resources as surely as any direct tax, and the lost opportunity cost means less jobs, products, value and wealth for everyone.

Reduce the Problem by Reducing Government

People inherently understand that government somehow is the problem and that the government just can’t always be the answer, that you’re always robbing Peter to pay Paul. Everybody knows this in their gut, but when we hear a politician say “We’re going to spend $200 million on creating a green energy economy and it’s going to create all these jobs,” we need to think this through and we’ll see that the politician is dead wrong. That $200 million that the government is going to spend on green energy programs is $200 million that private industries no longer have.  Opportunity cost. Think about it.  How much of that $200 million green energy fund do you think is getting wasted by government bureaucracy, government contracting to special interest groups that drive up the cost, government quotas, government regulations, government this and government that, so that the $200 million is not being effectively used.  It’s not creating jobs because it just destroyed $200 million of private investments.  That $200 million would have otherwise been available for business owners throughout the state who watch their pennies and could generate unbelievable amounts of economic activity, could create real value, real products, and real jobs if that $200 million was left in the hands of the private sector to do what it does best, which is create value and return for money.  That’s what businesses do.

So think about that the next time you hear a candidate say, “we need better government, we need to create jobs for people.”  Think to yourself, “No, you don’t get it.”  Government can’t possibly create jobs of any kind of comparative value like the private sector because of its immunity from market forces, it ability to raise revenue by force, and its nature of perpetual existence.

Candidates should be running on the concept that private enterprise creates and that government is an impediment.  Government has certain things it has to do and yes, it has to collect money though taxes to do those functions.  But creating jobs is not a constitutional government function.  Government is a private job destroyer. A candidate who understands economics will realize that the best thing he can do to help Colorado towards a stronger economy is to remove the barriers to job creation that government creates through taxes and regulation, and that there would be room to do that in our budget if we were to eliminate the unconstitutional government bloat that exists in Colorado today.

Below is a link to a report that says 32 states have borrowed from the federal government to make unemployment payments. Following are some initial impressions that only an actuary (or other number oriented, critically thinking persons) would note:

Twelve of these states have borrowed $1 billion or more. 11 out of those 12 states are “blue states” – CA, FL, IL, IN, MI, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, WI. Only one of those 12 states is a “red state” – Texas.

Out of the $37.8 billion that all of the states have borrowed to cover unemployment in total, 87% of that debt has been borrowed by “blue states” and 13% has been borrowed by “red states”.

BHO’s “home state” (whatever that means these days, but I mean it here as a former U.S. Senator from IL who helped create the mess we’re in) Illinois came in 6th on the list at $2.2 billion, behind such progressive states as CA, MI, NY, PA and OH (#’s 1-5).

If you take the total amount of borrowings for each blue state and divide it by their aggregate populations, you’ll find that “blue states” have borrowed $172.47 per capita. If you do the same for the “red states”, you’ll find that “red states” have borrowed $70.62 per capita.

These progressives really know how to get IT done. The questions that the sheeple have to wake up to are “What exactly is IT?” and “When are we gonna stop them?”

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/32-states-have-borrowed-from-treasury.html

As MediaNews Group Inc., the holding company for the Denver Post and other newspapers, fights for survival through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, alternative competitive media outlets continue to gain traction. While there are certainly many factors that are driving the demise of many newspapers, like plunging print advertising revenue, etc., one of the factors that the Denver Post seems to fail to recognize is that a poor product will not win votes, as counted by the dollars spent for subscriptions, advertising, etc.

When someone wants to find out the pro’s and con’s of an issue, what is the first avenue that comes to mind? The internet. Sadly, the Post is not even a serious consideration for critical thinkers.  A perfect example of why this is the case sits on the Opinion Page, 11B, of the May 18 edition of the Post. The Point/Counterpoint asks the question “Should people who work past retirement age be exempted from Social Security taxes?” I wish that I could say that both sides made a rational argument for their position that resulted in constructive dialogue. No such luck. The Post’s inability to find competent fact-based reporting and the construction of logical editorial arguments points to either a dearth of said writing or a lack of ability on the Post’s part to identify said writing. Neither scenario bodes well for the Post.

Wayne Madsen’s class-warfare attack on seniors who work is as stunning in its  vitriol as it is in its undocumented, false assertions. Madsen asserts that “a vast majority” of the seniors who work are “comfortably upper-middle class – not only owning their homes, but often a second one on a golf course or near the beach.” He also states that their stock portfolios far surpass the lifetime savings of most Americans and that more than half drive expensive foreign cars.

Anyone who is objective can easily do a modest amount of research and find the facts on the demography of workers over age 60. For example, according to a 2006 study by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, over 60% of those working in the 60-65 age group are doing so because they need income to live on. Almost 40% of workers in the 65-70 age group work because they need income to live on. This was in 2006. Things are more challenging today than in 2006. A 2008 survey by MetLife Mature Market Institute found that one in four people over the age of 62 wouldn’t retire as expected due to the economy (that’s in 2008, before things got even worse).

http://www.metlife.com/mmi/research/index.html

RetirementJobs.com, the number one job site for career seekers over the age of 50, as measured by traffic, saw its visitor count quadruple from August 2008 to February 2009. According to Bob Skladany, vice president and chief career counselor for RetirementJobs.com, “people who are retired and had no expectation of working again appear to be returning to the work force or job search in incredibly large numbers.” Of those surveyed, over 60% said that they were looking for full time work as opposed to 25% prior to the summer of 2008.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/personal-finance/lifestyle-money/career-center/senior-citizens-look-enter-work-force/

Madsen’s ad hominem attack on this fictitious majority group of rich senior workers includes calling them egotistic, “oh-so-comfortable”, “the geriatric ungrateful”, “latter-day Midas”, and “super-rich seniors.”

Madsen’s straw-man argument using Chevy Chase, Maryland, is incredibly off the mark.  A simple online look at the demographics of Chevy Chase, Maryland (according to the 2000 U.S. census) reveals the population to be 2,726 people with a median age of 43.1. Madsen’s excoriation of this “posh suburb” as “the crown jewel of conspicuous self-aggrandizement by super-rich seniors” is a flat out false accusation.

Another of Madsen’s straw-man arguments posits that working seniors should be happy to pay an extra 20-25 percent in taxes because they would still remain “far wealthier than their counterparts in any other country on earth.” By this logic, Mr. Madsen should be voluntarily paying an extra 20-25 percent in taxes because he himself would also still be far wealthier than his counterparts in any country on earth.  In fact, those who live at the poverty line in the U.S. are also among the group who can count themselves as fortunate to be “far wealthier than their counterparts in any other country on earth.” According to 2003 data from the World Bank and CIA Fact Book, the per capita income in the U.S. was $37,500.  The poverty line for the U.S. in 2003 for a family of four was $18,400. The per capita in U.S. dollars of the “middle income” for the entire world is $6,000. Global low income is defined as $2,190.

Finally, Madsen demands that seniors should “give back some of their stockpiled treasures”, participate in “shared sacrifice”, and accept a “blessings-of-liberty surtax” on “their own mini-Fort Knoxes.” Mr. Madsen has zero right to lay claim to the hard won savings and property of others to pass out as he sees fit. This is an outlandish call for a Marxist response to a problem that does not exist. He then has the nerve to tell seniors that this would actually be good for them because, like Scrooge, they might wake up to find the joy in helping the unfortunate among us. Apart from wondering just how much seniors voluntarily give to charity out of their incomes compared to Mr. Madsen, it is insulting to be lectured on virtue in the final paragraph by someone who has spent the entire article hurling false accusations and calling people names.

Most bothersome to me is that the Denver Post continues to print such absolute false, vicious, absurd Op-Ed’s from incredibly out of the mainstream writers and pretend that they are represent a valid argument for the liberal side of the issue. To continually present these absurdly constructed opinions that consist only of ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments as valid positions does nothing to advance the true dialogue that is needed to address the very real issues that we face today. Does the Post print such drivel as if it represented legitimate policy positions because it lacks the critical thinking to evaluate submitted op-ed articles and pick one that actually makes a good case for its position, or is this simply the best that the Left has to offer?

I sat in on the testimony for SB 191 last week. I had signed up to testify, but the list of “star witnesses” that were scheduled to testify ran so long that I, a mere parent, never made it. Not that I mind all that much, because there was a lot of good testimony for the bill – far more so than there was against the bill.

In researching the opposition to Senate Bill 191, as well as listening to the full testimony on April 22-23, the primary opposition to this bill can be summed up as:

SB 191 is somehow punitive and does not include the teachers in the front end of the process.
There is a reliance on standardized tests for teacher evaluation (CSAPS were mentioned often).
Unqualified administrators are reviewing teachers and due process is needed to protect teachers.
There will be a huge cost and unfunded mandate.

I would like to address those objections, as I believe that they are unfounded.

SB 191 is somehow punitive and does not include the teachers in the front end of the process

“We need reform to be done WITH teachers, not TO teachers.” This is one of the main talking points for the CEA. The idea the SB 191 is somehow punitive and does not include teachers in the front end of the process is simply not true. In January 2010, Governor Bill Ritter issued an executive order creating the Council for Educator Effectiveness. The Colorado Education Association (CEA) fully supports and has endorsed the Governor’s Council. Teachers are represented on the Governor’s Council. Senate Bill 191 charges that very Council to define measures of effectiveness and to make recommendations for how this reform should take place. The teachers are very much included in this process. Based upon their own proclamations of what they want – a rigorous, objective, transparent and valid system – the exact language that is in this bill – and their role on the Council in drafting the rules of implementation, the CEA should be thrilled with this bill. It is clear that teachers are a part of this process.

There is a reliance on standardized tests for teacher evaluation (CSAPS were mentioned often)

Another key talking point being brandished by opponents of this bill is that teacher evaluations should not be based soley upon standardized tests. Annual CSAPS are mentioned over and over. This is a disingenuous argument aimed at deflecting the issue of accountability. Anyone who has actually read the bill will note that CSAPS are never specifically mentioned and that multiple measures of performance are provided for. As Senator King pointed out in testimony on Thursday, the bill specifically provides that “Multiple measures shall be used to determine teacher effectiveness…” Again, teachers on the Governor’s council will be involved in making the very recommendations on how to define and measure effectiveness. The CEA talking points and sound bites that this bill would legislate teacher evaluation based soley upon CSAP’s do not stand up to a fact check of this bill.

Unqualified administrators are reviewing teachers and due process is needed to protect teachers

On the CEA’s website, one of their talking points against Senate Bill 191 is that “While principals are the key to a good evaluation system, they often do not have the training or the time to do evaluations well. This is why teachers want a new, fair, credible evaluation system.”

So teachers don’t want principals to evaluate them? Current law on the books since 1984 already requires that only a person with a principal or administrator license who has received education and training in evaluation skills approved by the Colorado Department of Education can be responsible for evaluations. This current law would not be changed by SB 191. Even the CEA acknowledges these laws on their own website. If the CEA’s claim is true, then the current law is being broken. Seen any law suits the past 26 years? Me either.

The CEA website goes on to assert that “Teaching is a high-risk profession that requires professionals to be able to work in a supportive environment without fear of reprisals or capricious decisions by principals. The bill penalizes an experienced teacher with two consecutive years of “demonstrated ineffectiveness” (based partially on student test scores), forcing the teacher back to probationary status without due process.”

This is patently absurd. To simply be removed from tenure after two years of demonstrated ineffectiveness as documented by licensed professionals who are trained in teacher evaluation according to Colorado Department of Education standards, along with the commensurate remediation plans and re-evaluations is more than enough due process. This is the same as the current law already on the books, overseen by a council that already includes teachers, which has supposedly been followed by schools since 1984! In the past 26 years, I don’t recall hearing a whole lot about reprisals and capricious decisions being made by principals and teachers being fired right & left. The only anecdotes that I hear as a parent are the ones about the handful of teachers that we all know to avoid at all costs because they have tenure and the school can’t get rid of them. In point of fact, this entire evaluation process provides far more leeway than would ever be given to a private sector employee whose work performance is substandard.

There will be a huge cost and unfunded mandate

So what are the CEA’s budget-busting concerns?

This bill would cause tenured teachers and principals to be reviewed annually instead of every three years. Annual reviews are a basic means of accountability that virtually every private sector employee faces. This is not onerous. Mrs. Ingle argues that this would be a budget-busting burden because “School districts do not have the capacity to evaluate every employee every year under their current management structure and budgets.” It is supposedly beyond the capabilities of “current management structure and budgets?” to do annual teacher reviews, just like any other employee of a firm in the private sector? I don’t think so.

Mr. Salazar of the CEA testified yesterday that the costs will be tremendous, citing the implementation of and training for evaluation systems. Let’s think this through. Fact 1: teacher evaluation systems are already in place. Fact 2: CEA President Ingle has stated publicly several times that “The teacher evaluation system in Colorado is broken.” So we have established that there is a current system in place, and that it is broken – yet at the same time the CEA simultaneously objects to this bill on the grounds that implementing better evaluation systems based upon the CEA endorsed Council’s recommendations will cost too much? Does that make sense? There is a cost of time and resources already associated with the current broken system. Re-directing those resources in an improved system is simply a prudent course of action. In fact, testimony from several school superintendents on Friday refuted that this would be a budget issue at all.

The CEA’s Mr. Salazar also expressed concern regarding the costs of newly created career opportunities, or career ladders, as expressed in the bill. In yesterday’s testimony, Senator Steadman also expressed concern on this issue. As a taxpayer in a state with tremendous budget pressures, I also share their concerns. I strongly encourage our legislature to be diligent and judicious regarding the funding of any additional career opportunities. This is not a time for hand-waving conciliatory gestures toward fiscal responsibility. I do believe that it is important to address the issue of funding these career ladder opportunities in a manner that would not increase the burdens of taxpayers or school districts. Whether this is done by making the opportunities contingent upon outside funding, making it a variable expense tied to variable income, funding from current ineffective programs could be re-allocated, or some other method, I urge fiscal responsibility in this area. It is my understanding that the committee has proposed a method to fund any additional costs for new career ladders. I think we would all agree that we want to ensure that this bill would not create any unfunded mandates.

To loosely summarize the bill, the main impacts of this legislation would be to create annual reviews for tenured teachers (just like the private sector), tie a portion of the review for all teachers and administrators to their work product (just like the private sector), provide additional pay and career opportunities for highly effective teachers (just like the private sector), allow a teacher to lose tenure after TWO years of unsuccessful execution of their job (far more generous than the private sector) and allow schools to have the right to refuse to employ a poor teacher (just like the private sector).

And on top of that, this bill as amended would not even enact all of these much needed reforms until the school year 2014-2015. I would argue that this timeline should be accelerated.

What gets lost in this debate are the many, many fine teachers who would benefit from this bill – the highly effective teachers who could see additional career path opportunities in return for their exceptional performance and collaboration. There were some outstanding teachers who testified on Friday that were professional, enthusiastic and highly competent. They desperately want an opportunity to excel in their field. THEY are the people I want teaching MY kids. Enthusiasm, excellence and success are contagious. These folks had it. They should be rewarded. They should not be saddled with the ee-yores of the world who spread their cynical doom and gloom, wallow in pity and try their best to drag anyone around them down to their “experienced” level. The best piece of advice I ever got when I started teaching was to avoid the teachers’ lounge at all costs – it would suck the life out of you. Some things haven’t changed.

The fact that a teacher should be reviewed annually is not punitive – it is a basic standard of accountability. The right of a school to deny placement to a teacher who has been ineffective despite TWO YEARS of remediation is not punitive – it is a fundamental responsibility that each school has to their students.

God bless Evie Hudak’s bleeding heart, as she came to the brink of tears trying to say that teachers shouldn’t be held accountable for their students’ level of improvement, but I don’t know of any successful enterprise that has no accountability. The fact is that the measures of accountability (that teachers on the CEA approved Governor’s Council will help draft) will utilize multiple methods and will be only half of a teacher’s evaluation. These measures only would apply to a student’s change over the course of the year. It would be a measurement of “did they improve?” I’m an actuary. I know statistics. I’m quite willing to bet that the upward bias that results from effective teaching over the sample of a teacher’s 100-180 students would clearly outweigh the impact of a handful of students who did worse on their end-of-year test than on their beginning-of-year test because they skipped breakfast or worked late the night before.

That fact is that laws have been on the books regarding teacher evaluations since 1984. The CEA has been conspicuously absent in improving this process for 26 years. Now all of a sudden they want to fix a system that’s broken? It sounds like just the idea of Senate Bill 191 is starting to bring accountability to education. Anyone who supports quality education should support Senate Bill 191.

I was only three sentences into CEA President Beverly Ingle’s Op-Ed in the Denver Post on April 21 when I knew I had to respond. You see, her third sentence was a poorly worded question that actually made no sense, although I could infer what it was that she meant to ask. So, after reading three sentences of a piece written by the President of the Colorado Education Association, only 2 of them make sense. I used to be a high school math teacher, not an English teacher. Still, having been a teacher and dues-paying state/federal union member before leaving education, I am curious as to what this op-ed will reveal. Read on, intrepid taxpayer, let’s see if this was an aberration.

Next up, a false generalization stating that supporters of SB 191 claim that passage of the bill would guarantee that Colorado will win federal funds in Round 2 of “Race to the Top.” Certainly I could have missed it, but I haven’t seen anyone make such guarantees.

Next paragraph: a sentence mixing tenses stating that “Next year, Colorado school districts are receiving…” I believe that should be “will receive.” Continuing on, it looks like we have the classic straw man argument, setting up the potential value of winning Race to the Top funds of $25 per student vs. budget cuts of $450 per student. The actual title of the bill is “Concerning Ensuring Quality Instruction Through Educator Effectiveness”, not “A Guaranteed Method to Win Race to the Top Funding.” Mrs. Ingle seems to either be missing the point of the bill, or misleading us with a straw man argument.

Moving on, I see that her next line of objection to the bill is that it will create an unfunded mandate for school districts in Colorado. As I read the Colorado Legislative Council Staff Fiscal Note on the State and Local Impact of SB 191, I see that she is correct. The note specifically states that “These expenses for changing the evaluation and review process will be paid from existing school and district budgets.” I agree that legislating unfunded mandates can certainly be a problem.

What is Mrs. Ingle’s budget-busting concern? Every teacher and principal would have to be evaluated every year. This is too onerous for schools? Colorado schools already evaluate all non-tenured teachers annually. This bill specifically states that “Review and evaluation of probationary (non-tenured) teachers is unchanged.” Colorado schools currently review tenured teachers every three years. This bill would cause tenured teachers to be reviewed annually instead of every three years. Mrs. Ingle argues that this would be a budget-busting burden because “School districts do not have the capacity to evaluate every employee every year under their current management structure and budgets.” So increasing the evaluations of a sub-set of your teaching staff, tenured teachers only, from every three years to annually is beyond the capabilities of “current management structure and budgets?” If that’s true, then that’s a pretty damning indictment of the current system.

Mrs. Ingle states that “CEA and its members want a new system that is rigorous, objective, transparent and valid.” She’s in luck! The Colorado Legislative Council Staff’s Summary of SB 191 states that under this proposed legislation, “Teachers and principals are evaluated using multiple fair, transparent, timely, rigorous, and valid methods.” The summary states that boards must ensure that:

• teachers and principals are evaluated using multiple fair, transparent, timely, rigorous, and valid methods;

Other elements of the bill provide:

• at least 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation is determined by the academic growth of the teacher’s students;
• at least 66 percent of a principal’s evaluation is determined by a combination of the
• academic growth of the students and the demonstrated effectiveness of the teachers in the principal’s school;
• highly effective teachers and principals have access to career ladders that will help them earn additional pay in return for sharing effective practices with other educators; and
• the state can adopt and implement a plan for equitable distribution of highly effective teachers and principals.
• at least 1 annual observation with written report of principals

The other principal elements of the bill provide:

• teacher tenure after three consecutive years of demonstrated effectiveness
• review of non-tenured teachers remains unchanged

Here is the real deal killer for the CEA:

• at least 1 annual observation with written report of tenured teachers
• teachers shall earn tenure after 3 consecutive years of demonstrated effectiveness but lose tenure if they fail to demonstrate effectiveness for 2 consecutive years (not be fired, just lose tenure)
• a teacher may only be assigned to a school only with the receiving school’s consent
• teachers unable to secure a school assignment after two hiring cycles will be placed on unpaid leave until they can secure an assignment

So to summarize the bill, the major impacts of this legislation would be to create annual reviews for tenured teachers (just like the private sector), tie a portion of the review for all teachers and administrators to their work product (just like the private sector), provide additional pay and career opportunities for highly effective teachers (just like the private sector), and allow schools to have the right to refuse a poor teacher (just like the private sector).

Who wants to see us “Rushing to adopt a system like SB 191 proposes…” I do! Yet Mrs. Ingle states that this proposed system “will only result in another evaluation system that teachers view as a joke.” Really? Explain the punch line of this joke to me, a taxpayer who funds this system. What is it about a) annual reviews, b) tying a portion of one’s review to their work product, c) providing career opportunities for highly effective teachers, and d) giving schools the right to refuse a poor teacher, that constitute a joke?

Mrs. Ingle states that “The teacher evaluation system in Colorado is broken.” Really? Who has been in charge of this system to date? Who’s fault is this? Could it be… teachers, administrators, boards and unions? Mrs. Ingle states that “No one wants an effective, quality teacher in every classroom more than the Colorado Education Association and its 40,000 members.” Really? Yet in the same Op-Ed she states that their own evaluation system is broken.

Here’s the question that no one has asked the teachers’ union that opposes this bill – where have you been? In 1984 Colorado passed a law requiring evaluations of teachers. Where have you been the past 26 years? But now that the people have decided that evaluations should have consequences, the CEA squeals like a stuck pig. Give me a break.

The reality is that teacher unions are quite clear as to who and what they represent. The late Al Shanker, for decades the president of the United Federation of Teachers as well as the president of the American Federation of Teachers, was once asked why the AFT didn’t put more emphasis on students. He replied that, “When students start paying union dues I’ll start representing students.”

The CEA has rolled some of its 40,000 members down to the Capitol to cry crocodile tears when the reality is that they are simply protecting their own self-interests by fighting a bill that would cause every teacher to be reviewed annually, allow for bad teachers to lose tenure, create career opportunities for highly effective teachers, and allow for schools to refuse to accept sub-standard teachers.

Who wants to see us “Rushing to adopt a system like SB 191 proposes…”? Count me in.

This is too funny to pass up. It seems that the Majority Party in the Colorado House of Representatives is not even competent enough to raise taxes as they would like.

Emboldened by a recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling stating that rolling back current tax exemptions to collect more tax money does not constitute a “tax increase” (therefore is not subject to voter approval as provided for by the Colorado State Constitution) the Democratic Legislators in the House have proposed a series of bills to do just that. The bills have been dubbed the “Dirty Dozen” by many because it appears to clear-minded thinkers that this circumvention of the state’s Constitution is bad legislation.

However, an interesting thing happened on the way to the dozen tax increases. One of these bills, HB10-1198, was apparently intended to increase taxes by eliminating the tax credit that taxpayers could take for any Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that they have to pay at the federal level. So why was this bill the only one killed in committee?

In reviewing this bill, the Joint Budget Committee (JBC) Staff Fiscal Analysis for the House Appropriations Committee concluded that the bill would raise revenues by $9 million by suspending the AMT tax credit. Another group of staffers, the Legislative Council staff, concluded that the bill would actually result in a LOSS of revenue because the wording of the bill would not only do away with the AMT credit, but also Colorado’s own Alternative Minimum Tax itself.

The House Committee on Finance has tabled House Bill HB10-1198 indefinitely. It appears that the wording in the bill accidentally would have had the effect of repealing both the AMT tax as well as the AMT tax credit. Judging from the JBC Staff Fiscal Analysis, and the rest of the bills they have proposed in the “Dirty Dozen”, this was not their intent.

It appears that rather than fix this embarrassing faux pas, the House Finance Committee simply killed their own bill. Thank God for small miracles.

HB1198 JBC Staff Analysis

HB1198 Legislative Council Staff Analysis

In the Denver Post on Sunday, January 31, Op-Ed columnist Ed Quillen paints a picture of an imaginary town called Galena. I found his story interesting, but it stopped well short of telling the whole story.

As Mr. Quillen’s story goes, the town of Galena has 1,000 households but only 980 of them are paying their fair share of taxes. Let’s pick up the story from there.

In Galena, the Mayor likes to go to the grocery store to buy for his family as well as to see all of the town’s citizens and do some good old fashioned politicking. He can go to the grocery store to buy food (no sales tax) and perhaps buy some sugar for baking (no sales tax), some syrup for pancakes (no sales tax), and some soda for the family (no sales tax). He also likes to chat with everyone and remind them that he’s up for re-election at the end of the year.

The town of Galena is made up of many hard working people and small business owners. There’s the Candy Store owner, the Butcher, the Hardware Store owner, the Rancher, and the Saw Mill owner, among many others.  The Mayor is especially good friends with the Candy Store owner, since he has quite the sweet tooth, and the town’s Candy Store owner makes some very good products that the town enjoys.

One day, our intrepid columnist Mr. Quillen rolls into the town of Galena and decries the fact that this Candy Store owner is not paying his fair share of taxes. Corporate greed has robbed the townspeople of basic decency and fairness! The candy maker must pay his fair share. Sugar must be taxed!

The Mayor listens carefully to Mr. Quillen and agrees that the town’s Candy Store owner is indeed getting a great deal at the expense of the other townspeople and that he must pay his fair share. In fact, at Mr. Quillen’s urging, the Mayor also notices that 1) the farmers in their town also receive an unfair advantage because there is no sales tax on agricultural sales, 2) the software manufacturers in their town also receive an unfair advantage because there is no sales tax on standardized software, and 3) the owner of the sawmill in their town also receives an unfair advantage because there is no sales tax on the utilities and fuel oil he buys for creating his wood products.

Equality must be restored! So the Mayor works hard to pass a law to add a sales tax to sugar, a sales tax to agricultural products, a sales tax to software, and a sales tax to the utilities and fuel utilized by the saw mill. It’s simply not fair to the other people in the town that these companies are exempt from this sales tax – what possible benefit does the rest of the town get out of this unfair treatment? The laws pass, and everyone pats themselves on the back for a job well done and they all go home. The Mayor is especially pleased and expects to be rewarded for such wise legislation come election time.

Several weeks later the Mayor goes to the store and finds that he has to pay a new sales tax of 2.9% on his sugar, his syrup and his soda. “Hmmm”, he thinks to himself, “I thought that the Candy Maker was the one who was supposed to pay his fair share, not me.  Oh well… 2.9%… not a big deal,” he thinks, and he heads down the road, stopping at the butcher’s to buy some meat for dinner. But the steak he used to buy for $4.99 a pound now costs $5.99. “What happened here?” asks the Mayor. The Butcher replies that the cost is up because the Rancher, the Meat Processor and he himself, the Butcher, have all had their operating costs go up because they now have to pay 2.9% new sales tax on their agricultural products, their utilities and fuel, and their various software packages that they use to do their accounting, payroll, inventory, advertising and business management. They’ve all had to raise the prices that they charge in order to pay for these increased costs, and those increased costs get passed along the line of production all the way to the final product – in this case, the Mayor’s steak.

Well, this is not a very happy trip, thinks the Mayor. Leaving the Butcher, he stops at the Hardware Store to get some materials for a project that he’s doing at home. He notices that the cost of lumber has gone up quite a bit. “This is outrageous!” exclaims the Mayor to the Hardware Store owner. “Last week this plywood cost $22, and now it costs $25! And this hammer I wanted to buy is more expensive than last week too! What gives?” The Hardware Store owner simply shakes his head, replying, “There’s nothing that I can do about it Mr. Mayor. The wood from the sawmill costs a lot more these days, and my own expenses have gone up too. I had to replace my antiquated inventory and sales systems and my accounting software, and it was more expensive than I had thought it would be. Plus, my utility bills and fuel costs are higher these days. I’ve already reduced my profit margins, but I can’t GIVE it away – I’ve got to make enough to meet payroll, which in this economy is looking tough right now. “

By now the Mayor is quite agitated. Driving by the sawmill he sees that a crowd has gathered. Stopping by to see what’s going on, he finds the Sawmill owner. “What’s going on here?” the Mayor asks the Sawmill owner. “Well Mr. Mayor, it seems that I have to lay off my second shift for now. I just can’t afford to keep the mill open as much because the costs of my materials, my utilities, my fuel, and my software systems have all gone up. In this economy, I can’t raise the prices enough to keep my margins where they need to be in order to employ everyone.  I have to raise them what I can, and then lay off some folks as well. I’ve never had to do this before and it hurts, but losing money is no way to stay in business.”

The Mayor slips away unnoticed from the sorry scene as quickly as he can. Driving home, he goes past the Candy Store. He screeches to a halt when he sees the sign in the window that says “CLOSED.” Seeing the Candy Store owner walking to his car, the Mayor asks him why he was closing early. The owner replies that he’s not closing early for the day – he’s closing for good.  “The dominoes that fell when we made the taxes fair for me as a candy maker ended up putting me out of business.  The costs of my raw materials (sugars, etc.) went up more than just the 2.9% of sales tax.  They also went up due to …”

“I know, I know,” said the Mayor, “Because the costs of fuels, utilities, software, and other things went up for many other people in addition to you, and all of those costs were added together throughout the entire process of production, right?”

“That’s right, Mr. Mayor. With the costs of my raw materials going up, my manufacturing and operating costs going up, and then having to add on another 2.9% to the sales price of my products to people, I just couldn’t raise the price enough in this tough economy to stay afloat. I guess raising taxes 2.9% on a particular item doesn’t sound like much in theory, but when you add in all of the layers and businesses that are affected just by these four taxes that we raised, it’s not just 2.9%. It’s much bigger than that.  And in this economy, people just can’t afford it. They’re cutting back on candy. I’ll have to go somewhere else to start over.  The 5 people that I laid off will get unemployment benefits for a while, until they can hopefully find another job. But it’s a similar story pretty much everywhere.  I heard that the Sawmill laid off people today as well. I sure hope those extra taxes that you raised will be able to pay for all of the help that that those unemployed people are going to need.”

The Mayor went home. Due to decreasing tax revenues from lost jobs and people getting by with less, further driving down the sales tax revenue, he had to furlough some of Galena’s employees. The combination of less jobs and lower production put Galena into a real fiscal mess. The Mayor reflected upon his decision to make these four taxes equitable because the rest of the town did not seem to get any benefit from such unfair tax treatment. The Mayor could not win re-election when the people realized the impact that his decisions had created, so after he finished his term, he moved away.

Mr. Quillen, meanwhile, continued to work in his ivory tower in Denver (also known as the Denver Post), where he blithely went on his merry way of ensuring equity and social justice for all. That is until he showed up for work one day and found that there was no heat, no lights, and no people. “Odd,” he thought to himself. “I seem to remember something like this happening to me at the Rocky Mountain News…”