'76 Blog

Colorado's second straight year of inevitable cuts in state aid to education can become an opportunity to improve learning performance while shedding needless costs, according to a policy brief from the Centennial Institute, Colorado Christian University's think tank.  The paper is online here: Centennial Policy Brief No. 2010-2 "Much Better Schools on Much Lower Budgets: A Primer for Colorado Policymakers" draws on proven models for achieving more with less, from schools across the country and around the world.  "Our state has massive cost inefficiencies and educational deficiencies within the structure of K-12 education, built up over decades and crying out for correction," says the author. Over $1 billion must be cut from projected spending in order to balance the 2011-2012 budget.   Students in neighboring Utah, the paper points out, significantly outperform Colorado students on the respected NAEP test, even though Utah's spending per pupil is only 61 cents on the dollar compared to Colorado's.  Denver parochial schools succeed better with minority youngsters than nearby public schools, at just 55 cents on the dollar. Looking abroad, we see education systems from Canada to Korea to Germany far exceeding the United States in academic achievement at 30% lower cost. The paper is organized in Q&A format around 20 concise topics, starting with "Admit: The US trails woefully in global rankings," running through "See why the teaching profession has faltered" and "Realize school funding is bloated, not starved," and concluding with recommendations to "Legislate boldly in 2011." William J. Moloney, former Colorado Education Commissioner with a lifetime of school experience in a half-dozen other states and countries, authored the policy brief in consultation with a panel of educators, legislators, and budget experts.  "It is in our power to fix what is broken; all that's needed is the political will," Moloney writes in the introduction. "There will never be a more opportune moment to break out of the old paradigm." He calls on the General Assembly to reinterpret Amendment 23's factor formulas in line with budget realities; offer local school districts a timeout from costly mandates, accreditation, and testing; allow schools to outsource many functions; encourage charters, vouchers, and tax credits; and defuse PERA's "pension time bomb." John Andrews, director of the Centennial Institute, says in an editor's note that when Moloney warned some weeks ago about Colorado public education becoming one of several "metastasizing entitlements that have reached a point of absolute unsustainability," defenders of the education status quo replied in print with emotion, not logic.  They deemed the former commissioner's analysis "offensive to educators" -- without attempting to refute it factually.  (Denver Post, Oct. 3 and Oct. 14, 2010.) In releasing the policy brief today, Andrews commented: "Centennial Institute and Bill Moloney will be working actively with legislators of both parties to help translate this new paradigm into budgetary solutions.  With or without cooperation from teacher unions and the education lobby, the state's dire fiscal condition is forcing policymakers to think way outside the box -- and that's good news for ill-served Colorado schoolchildren."     

('76 Editor) This week Centennial Institute officially begins its second year. We're working to become known in Colorado and nationally as the open forum where current issues are tested against timeless principles.  Our Spring 2010 events calendar features topics from drug policy to mobility strategies to the Christian testimony of an ex-Muslim terrorist.  We'll also feature Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute on capitalism in crisis, Douglas Bruce on taxpayer protection in Colorado, and Michael Poliakoff on the classical legacy of Vergil. The full schedule, confirmed with a few exceptions, is below.  There's no charge for these events, but space is limited, so you will need to reserve early.  For reservations, email Centennial@ccu.edu or call 303.963.3424. Wednesday, February 17, 7pmCCU Music CenterDebate: "Why Not Legalize All Marijuana?"State Rep. Tom Massey, State Sen. Sean Mitchell,DA Carol Chambers, Attorney Jessica Corry-----------------------------------------  Monday, February 22, 7pmCCU Business School 101Issue Monday: "Mobility Solutions for Colorado"Randal O'Toole, Author of "Gridlock"-----------------------------------------  Wednesday, March 3, 12 noonCCU Dining Commons AnnexLuncheon Briefing: "Confronting Radical Islam"Tawfik Hamid, Author of "The Roots of Jihad"----------------------------------------- Monday, March 15, 7pmCCU Beckman Center 202Issue Monday: "Vergil's Epic of Western Civilization"Dr. Michael Poliakoff, Former Academic VP, University of Colorado-----------------------------------------  Friday, March 19, 730amBrown Palace HotelPolicy Breakfast: "Reviving Democratic Capitalism"Arthur Brooks, President, American Enterprise Institute-----------------------------------------  Wednesday, April 7, 12 noonCCU Dining Commons AnnexLuncheon Briefing: "From Muslim Terrorist to Christian Believer"Kamal Saleem, Author of "The Blood of Lambs"-----------------------------------------  Wednesday, April 14, 7pmCCU Music CenterLecture: "Defending Liberty"Wayne LaPierre, President, National Rifle Association (invited)-----------------------------------------  Monday, April 19, 7pmCCU Beckman Center 202Issue Monday: "Taxpayer Protection in Colorado, 1985-2010"Douglas Bruce, Author of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights    

('76 Editor) While others play the personality game of who succeeds Bill Ritter, let’s talk policy.  Imagine Colorado making itself so attractive to employers that we lead all 50 states in creating new jobs, instead of lagging in 20th place as we did in the decade past (our second-worst showing since 1890). Imagine Colorado becoming a mecca for affordable health care by letting insurers from across the country compete on price and quality in our state marketplace.  Imagine forging out as the nation’s futuristic energy leader, the state that builds safe nuclear plants for clean electricity powering homes, businesses, and vehicles. Imagine our schools putting kids’ best interests ahead of union demands with the most charter-friendly policies in America, slashing red tape to empower learning performance.  Imagine our university system paying students a 25% dividend on their time and tuition by innovating the three-year college degree. Imagine a legislature so tough-minded that it would solicit private investors for Colorado’s transportation infrastructure, Indiana-style; clean up the PERA retirement system’s governance to exclude self-serving insiders; impeach the state’s chief justice for rewriting our constitution; and launch an all-out investigation of radical Islam’s influence here. And imagine a state government so honest that it no longer grabs a 15-month, zero-interest loan from your paycheck in the form of tax withholding.  Rather you keep your own money for your own use until the revenue deadline in April each year. Such imagineering, as the Disney people call it, is great for mind expansion. But don’t expect any of these visions to be realized in legislation when the Colorado General Assembly convenes this week.  Majority Democrats, led by House Speaker Terrance Carroll and Senate President Brandon Shaffer, envision our future differently – and for now, citizens have put them in charge. For now.  The ruling party’s legislative work from January to May is their final exam.  In November the voters will file a report card on every House member and half the Senate.  Some of us hope all the Democrats flunk.  To hasten that, Republicans should use the 2010 session to prove that “out of power” does not mean out of ideas. Snow may be scarce in the mountains, but at the Capitol a blizzard of bills is flying.  During these 120 days nearly a thousand proposals will surface.  Some will tackle the budget deficit.  Others will push hot buttons, from legal pot to illegal aliens. We’ll hear about such bedroom questions as the gun in the nightstand or who shares a pillow.  So will they also find time to debate the big-picture policy issues? Ten are imagined on my list above.  GOP legislators, outnumbered in both chambers, can’t pass these good ideas into law.  They can't even get many of them to a floor vote where Dems are put on record.  But they can certainly propose them as bills, publicize and advocate for them, laying down a marker for the upcoming campaign. Rep. Spencer Swalm (R-Centennial) is doing just that with his proposal to end mandatory withholding of state income tax, a transparency move to highlight the ever-growing cost of government.  “When a taxpayer has to sit down and write a check,” says Swalm, “it wonderfully focuses the mind.” Businesses, for that matter, shouldn’t pay income tax at all – since they merely pass it along to consumers or squeeze it out of employee payrolls.  Spurring an employment boom by axing that tax was one of my recommendations to gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis in a column last month.  His legislative allies should call the Dems’ bluff on job creation with a bill. By helping Coloradans imagine a better legislature in 2010, Republicans can help themselves back to the majority in 2011.  “Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it,” sang that old political balladeer, Goethe.  

(Centennial Fellow) Hitting to all fields:  (1) Barack Obama may be a far better orator than George W. Bush, but when Bush delivered a message, despite his sometimes mangled syntax, everyone knew what he stood for.  Because Obama's elocution is superior, only later do people realize they have no idea what he really meant. (2) If overhauling the nation's health care system is so urgent that lawmakers can't be afforded time to read the bills before they vote, why does so much of the legislation not take effect until after the 2012 election? (3) Obama vowed that he wouldn't sign health legislation if it adds "even one dime to our deficit over the next decade — and I mean what I say."  The Senate bill costs $900 billion and, we now know, its alleged savings were counted twice and spent elsewhere in the bill.  Obama also promised that health "reform" would "cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year" and he opposed a requirement that everyone must purchase insurance.  The Senate bill is estimated to double or triple premiums for young families and, of course, requires them to buy insurance or pay a fine.  What's more alarming — that Obama believes what he says, when so much is demonstrably untrue, or that he thinks most people still believe him? (4) The test of a politician's commitment to limited government is if he still believes in limited government when his party is in power. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) was first elected in 1984.  He's seen Republicans win majorities when they focused on limited government, constitutional freedom and economic growth.  Yet, Barton wants Congress to require a college football post-season playoff and make it unlawful to call any game the "national championship" unless it is the culmination of a playoff. (5) Notwithstanding Gov. Bill Ritter's proclamations and ribbon cuttings, the "new energy economy" isn't recession proof.  A wind turbine manufacturer in Windsor first announced that 500 employees would be furloughed, then suggested they would be reassigned to other tasks and could face indefinite "long weekends" while production of turbine blades is halted. Once upon a time, politicians understood that a good energy policy produced power from reliable sources at affordable prices.  Today, too many lawmakers think it's their job to prefer certain sources of energy — solar, wind and other "renewables" — and to impede others — namely, oil, gas, hydro and nuclear.  Anyone who opposes an energy policy that utilizes all available sources is either woefully uninformed or has an ulterior motive for wanting to impose higher costs and fewer choices on everyone else. (6) Government can't create jobs that contribute to a productive economy because government doesn't produce anything that people want to purchase.  That's why government resorts to taxation. (7) Majority rule can be just as dangerous as a despotic dictator.  Consider Social Security, Medicare and the proposed federal takeover of health care:  No one in their right mind would look their children or grandchildren in the eye and say, "You must pay two or three times more for health insurance, so I can buy my health insurance at less than half what it really costs."  Nor would they saddle their loved ones with tens of thousands of dollars of debt and a future of soaring tax rates and meager economic opportunities.  And for what?  To support an unsustainable system of health care entitlements and a retirement Ponzi scheme that would be considered fraudulent were it operated by anyone other than government. (8) If pro-life politics are so unfashionable, then how is it that Democrats — the party that won't even allow pro-life elected officials to speak at their national conventions — couldn't pass their health care bill in either the House or the Senate, despite huge majorities, without accommodating abortion foes? (9) Just wondering: is dissent still patriotic? Centennial Fellow Mark Hillman served as senate majority leader and state treasurer.  To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

('76 Editor) Also from our Head On mini-debate series on Colorado Public Television, Susan Barnes-Gelt and I vie for the oddest angle on what the New Year of 2010 might bring.  Don't hold your breath for any of this to come true, but the wacky speculation is an amusing pastime as Jan. 1 rushes toward us. John: Break out the funny hats and champagne. It’s John and Susan’s fearless predictions of 2010. To balance the budget, Ritter sells the Teamsters naming rights to the gold dome. Romanoff wins the Senate nomination by proving his carbon footprint is smaller. Oprah wins the Nobel Peace Prize for finally leaving us in peace. Susan: Bill Ritter gets re-elected and Andrew Romanoff goes to the U.S. Senate. The Denver Public School board and administration implode and Hickenlooper takes over the District. Smart Cars, walking and motorized bikes become the dominant modes of transportation and the country’s collective waistline shrinks. John: More 2010 predictions from our twisted crystal ball. Al Gore goes into grief therapy as the climate scare collapses. Tiger Woods converts to Islam for the polygamy. Obama moves right and names Tom Tancredo as Secretary of Homeland Security. Gen. Petraeus announces for president anyway. Happy New Year! Susan: Wall Street funds the program to rebuild America’s bridges, schools and parks out of their ill-gotten gains and bonuses – Airlines charge for carry-on instead of checked bags – thereby incenting good behavior. Hickenlooper works to build transit instead of traveling to Copenhagen to talk about it. Peace.

(CCU Student) In most aspects of our world today, we see the increasing absence of moral authority. Citizens in all venues of vocation are striving for premier results, success, and position, and moral authority has become forgotten and lost all meaning and value. Ethics and principles have been replaced with mendacious and disingenuous acts, most of the time being intentional. An area that I feel has lost its honorability and morality is our current government. This is not a statement made based of feeling, biased, or emotion; rather, on facts and evidence.  Our government has resonated the sound of a progressive movement towards socialism within the past few months, which directly contradicts the foundation set forth by our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, a deist and author of the declaration of independence, stated the following about his vision for the people of the United States: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” -(Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence) So there is no doubt that our country was meant to provide citizens with rights and prosperity. Our new governmental administration has decided to contradict the Constitution and take our country in a new direction. Now, change isn’t always a bad thing, where the question lies with, is it morally right to go against the will of the people and foundation of our country? There are three fundamental concepts that compromise moral authority in our nation. Universal healthcare is a current economic and political proposal that brings into question the matter of ethics and fairness. The government has digressed into a position defending and promoting the passing of a bill providing everyone with free healthcare.  Sure, it looks great on paper, but in this economy, it is deemed as further government acquisition of another aspect of our lives. It is essential for the government to be involved to an extent, but where should the line be drawn? The new administration is unbalanced and unchecked, giving democrats the chance to advance any laws they want. But how about morally, is it fair to those that do not wish to see taxes increased to pay off this bill, which will cost twenty percent of our entire economic revenue? Next, we take a look at the separation of church and state. Recently, the government has conveyed their message that they are impelling the separation of the church and state rather then coalescing the two.  The problem is, however, that the separation is a one-sided deal, as the government receives their taxes from churches, while the churches aren’t getting the appropriate rights or privacy. For example, if Proposition 8 in California would have passed, it would have required all churches to wed same and heterosexual couples regardless of denomination or affiliation. So churches are paying these high stipends, complying with federal law, and still aren’t able to obviate themselves from governmental affairs. The church has also attempted to accelerate the process of implementing the teaching of Creationism in schools, only to be thwarted numerous times in congress. In addition, it has been proven that Christian men founded our country on Christian principles and morals. Nine of the original thirteen founding fathers were bible- believing Christians, and this is proven throughout their actions. In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase Bibles, which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies. George Washington is identified today as an anti governmental advocate and once stated: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” -(George Washington, on Political Parties and Government) Thirdly, there is the issue of abortion. In 1973, a case titled Roe v. Wade voted in favor of the pro-choice movement and abortions became legal. Since then, the government has done little to ratify the law, and has been negligent and deemed Presidents who sought reform as derisory.  It is a controversial topic that has been debated time over time for the past quarter century, while no progress has been made. The government recently is in the process of enacting a law in the universal healthcare bill that would take taxpayer money to assist the federal in funding abortions. One has to question, why weren’t the American citizens involved in the inquiry, or informing of their own tax money going towards funding a cause as influential as abortion? This isn’t just a matter of pointing the finger at a single person; rather, it’s the corruption of government and how they’ve inveigled the media into preaching subliminal messages to its citizens. And to be impartial, government isn’t the only ones abusing this concept of absence of morality; it’s everywhere in our daily lives. As our society as a whole advances towards ideology of socialism and progressive liberalism, the line of moral ethics and values continues to move further and further back. At what point, however, will the line of morality be abolished, and fundamental Constitutional rights become eliminated? Therein lies the salient question, so I believe we should turn to the Bible to follow what God says. In Romans 13:1, God says to obey the government, but lest not forget that he is in charge of the grand scheme. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God.” -(Romans 13:1, Holy Bible)  

When it comes to the outrageous expansion of the federal debt, neither political party comes out unscathed.  In January of 2001, the debt was $5.7 trillion.  Now, after 8.4 years of a Bush-Obama spending spree, it stands at $11.4 trillion, with Congressional Budget Office estimates putting it at 82% of GDP by 2019 if the current course is sustained.  The threat of fiscal calamity is now undeniable, revealing to every American, with stark clarity, the necessity to address the nation’s fiscal crisis. Entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, are those social welfare programs provided to all, irrespective of the circumstances.  They represent the single largest component of the budget, at more than 42%, and their 2007 costs alone totaled $1.2 trillion—more than double the defense budget.  And as the baby boomer generation enters into the forefront of Social Security and Medicare, those programs will take an even larger bite out of the budget than they do now. Entitlements have long been known as the “third rail of American politics,” for they could electrocute an individual’s candidacy when touched.  But in order to stem the tide of the ever-increasing federal debt, serious action must begin by way of entitlement reform.  We must fix the third rail to prevent fiscal calamity. Social Security: Social Security is on the road to bankruptcy. Last year then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declared the program “financially unsustainable” and in dire need of reform.  And it needs it.  Badly. Modifying Social Security is both essential and complex. In sum, the program should first become means-tested, where individuals have to qualify for benefits. Next, Americans who meet certain criteria should be eligible to opt out and instead build up their own individual retirement accounts (IRAs), such as 401K’s. Given the current direction of Social Security, the chances of younger Americans, particularly those under the age of 45, having anything left and therefore wishing to continue to benefit from the program will be virtually nonexistent, enabling it to be phased out. Medicare: Medicare provides medical services to America’s senior citizens regardless of income.  In 2003, President Bush and Congress instituted additions which will swell costs by as much as $1.2 trillion in ten years, according to the Washington Post.  These additions constitute what is known as the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit which, in short, provides a subsidy to the prescription drug costs of the nation’s seniors. The layman’s solution to Medicare lies in slapping a grandfather clause on Part D, meaning that those who are currently not on the program will not receive expansionist Part D benefits; in making Medicare means-tested; and in allowing qualified individuals to opt out of the program if they so choose.  After all, why should Bill Gates get his healthcare paid for by the government after he turns 65? Whether or not a person qualifies for entitlement benefits should rely upon several factors, principally income level but perhaps also including yearly expenses, savings and the number of dependents.  The switch to a means-tested structure should pertain solely to those who are currently under the age of 45 or 50; that way, those who are already anticipating on receiving Medicare and Social Security benefits soon or who paid into the system for years will get them. Greater reform in the healthcare industry must then occur for those under that age through free-market approaches, not a brand-new entitlement program, and IRAs must be greatly encouraged. These are just a few starting points, but if the government takes serious action to implement the above proposals, we will at last be able to see a glimmer of hope for the debt—and for the next generation—without damaging the economy with tax increases or cutting benefits for those in need.

Why did England have such powerful economic growth in the 17th and 18th century, while France languished?  Why did England lead the way in technological achievement, advancing into the Industrial Revolution, while France remained mired in the past and oppressed by poverty and tyranny?  And what's the relevance of their contrasting experiences for us today? Perhaps the contrast was due to England’s limited government.  The Magna Carta forced the king to call Parliament if he wished to levy a tax, however Parliament usually demanded a voice in government, so the Stuart kings of the 17th century preferred to rule without them.  This kept taxes low or nonexistent, and enabled the English to accumulate vast amounts of capital, which they invested and built wealth.  Near the end of the 17th century the Stuarts kings were replaced in a bloodless revolution.  The new monarchs agreed to an English Bill of Rights, which limited royal power and granted even greater political and economic freedoms.  Assured of low taxation, of their rights as freeborn Englishmen, and of a free market economic system which rewarded hard work and thrift, they began to accumulate wealth.  Soon London became the financial capital of the world.  Their merchant ships spanned the globe, and their financial sector provided capital for world markets.  By the 18th century wealth continued to accumulate, helping to catapult Britain into modernity, allowing then to be at the cutting edge of innovation, building the factories which became the industrial revolution, and exporting their products world-wide. Across the channel their French neighbors were ruled by absolute monarchs.  There was no Magna Charta, no Parliament to control the crown’s taxing and spending powers.  The Bourbon monarchs of the 17th century, Louis XIII and Louis XIV, squeezed every centime they could out of the French people to build spectacular palaces and massive armies.  They also forced the Protestant minority, which was most of their entrepreneurial class, to convert to Catholicism or leave France.  These Huguenots emigrated to Holland, England or the 13 colonies in America, where they blessed their new homelands with their knowledge and skills.  Rockefellers, DuPonts, and Gettys settled in New York, where they built fortunes free of the taxation and persecution they experienced in France. The Bourbon monarchs of the 18th century, Louis XV and Louis XVI, continued their heavy taxing and spending policies until their entire system collapsed into the chaos and bloodbath of the French Revolution.  Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities confirms this comparison of London and Paris. While England was busy investing, creating and producing, France was beheading their population and setting government price controls on their commodities, which further decreased productivity.  When farmers hoarded their grain, rather than selling it at government imposed prices, they too were executed.  Who would go to the trouble of producing a crop, if forced to sell it at a loss or forfeit one’s life.  In their hunger and fear the French sought the personality cult of a strong leader, Napoleon Bonaparte, who promised them “liberty, equality and fraternity”, but actually brought more tyranny, then marched them to their death across Europe. What lessons can be learned from 17th and 18th century England and France?  Low taxes, limited government, and free markets produce wealth and freedom.  High taxes, government-controlled markets and charismatic leadership produces hunger, suffering, and tyranny.  If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it, but one thing we learn from history is that we usually don’t learn from history.