Budget test finds Ritter wanting

Colorado faces a $630 million budget shortfall and stark options now that half the fiscal year is past and so much money is already spent. Balancing a budget during a recession is a difficult, thankless job. But balancing this year's budget didn't need to be this hard if only the leaders at the Capitol had learned from the last recession - or listened to those who experienced it.

Last spring as the economic storm clouds gathered, Gov. Bill Ritter and legislative leaders had opportunities to take precautions.

One worthwhile precaution was proposed by Treasurer Cary Kennedy, my erstwhile political foe, and then-Rep. Bernie Buescher. At a time when revenues under Referendum C were surging, their proposal reasonably sought to double the state's reserve fund by saving, rather than spending, some $250 million.

After all, everyone who experienced the austere budgets of 2001-2003 agreed that the state needed a "rainy day fund."

Unfortunately, that proposal died on the altar of the spending lobby.

Then as lawmakers debated the state budget, headlines warned of a looming recession forecast by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. Again, prudence dictated that leaders put the brakes on spending money that might never materialize.

Unfortunately, legislators passed and Gov. Ritter signed a budget that spent every "available" dime, making promises that now cannot be kept.

Even more remarkable than the legislature's habitual failure to save is the day-late-and-dollar-short response of Gov. Ritter and his budget office. Upon signing the full-throttle state budget, Ritter said: "This is a budget we should celebrate. This is a budget that is smart, fiscally responsible and effective."

In September, when the legislature's economists sounded warnings about an economic downturn and a budget deficit, Ritter's Office of State Planning and Budget kept whistling a happy tune.

"One of (the forecasts) is pretty significantly wrong," Ritter told the Denver Post, which noted that Ritter "made it clear" that his forecast wasn't wrong.

Ironically, President Bush apparently changed Ritter's mind a few days later by remarking in a televised speech, "the entire economy is in danger." Ritter responded by putting a partial freeze on hiring and new construction and asking his department heads to "identify other money-saving ideas and strategies."

In November, the governor unveiled his budget for the fiscal year starting next July. He called for growing the budget at only 5 percent and setting aside "an unprecedented $77 million" in a new reserve fund.

Again, this was too little, too late.

His "unprecedented" proposal was just one-fourth the size of the earlier Kennedy-Buescher plan ‹ which received no support from Ritter.

The hypocrisy, as surely even Ritter knows, is that the time to save is when revenues are growing - not when they're already in retreat. That's because when revenues are increasing, saving requires simply setting aside a portion of the increase. But when revenues are declining, every dollar saved must be cut from existing programs.

In December, the legislature's economists sounded a full-throated alarm, projecting a $631 million deficit for 2008-09 and revenue growth at less than 1% for next year. This time, Ritter & Co. issued mixed messages.

Ritter said, "We're experiencing a historic and a global economic crisis." But his budget office forecast a mere $70 million deficit.

Two weeks later, Ritter's budget office asked for a mulligan, telling the Post it had "used outdated information" and now forecast a $230 million deficit - still barely one-third that projected by the legislature's economists.

Ritter's budget data isn't the only thing that's outdated. His fiscal strategies amount to closing the barn door after the horses have already left.

It's not as if Ritter is the first governor to experience these challenges. Just seven years ago in the wake of 9/11 and the tech bubble burst, Colorado lawmakers faced similar challenges.

Unfortunately, it seems the only lesson learned by Ritter is to ask taxpayers for more money to spend - but never to save for the next rainy day.

Don't look now, Governor, but it's raining again.

Mark Hillman served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

Hospital fees are the wrong answer

The revelation that Colorado Governor Ritter is conspiring with the Colorado Hospital Association to levy fees on hospitals to fulfill his political campaign promise to deal with the uninsured is a massively badidea. It falls short on three points.

First, there is no proof that hospitals have excess profits. Such fees would be internally cost shifted to patients and represent a hidden and covert tax. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are fixed and insurance companies negotiate discounts. That means only the sick, self-pay patient, who is already billed 27% more than the average would bear the brunt. It's regressive. We are trying to reduce cost shifting, not increase it.

Second, any extraction of additional monies so as to channel it back to pay for the costs of care of the uninsured is inflationary. Health care hyper-inflation is directly related to the steroidal injections of financial subsidies for various "needy" groups. It has distorted and destroyed any semblance of a marketplace in health care.

Finally, either mandates forcing people to buy health insurance or tax-based subsidies avoids the real need in health care reform. We need to re-institute disciplining forces, be-it competition or regulation, take your pick, to reverse the seemingly never-ending upward trend of health care inflation. In a time of recession we need the health care system to become more productive and efficient. Their costs need to decline, not superficially inflate.

The political establishment and the trade association lobby, continually obfuscate and avoid the real need in health care. There is no magic bullet. It is old fashioned efficiency improvement and quality. Maybe we should be consulting Toyota on health care.

Speaker Carroll's startling religiosity

"In ministry"? "Saving lost souls"? Come again, Mr. Speaker? State Rep. Terrance Carroll (D-Denver), who officially became Speaker of the Colorado House today, is quoted to startling effect by Rocky Mountain News columnist Bill Johnson about the continuity of these new responsibilities with his previous life as a Christian minister. "It's all the same thing," he said of the church and [a stint in CU] police work, "saving lost souls." Next would come a law degree from the University of Denver and associate pastor stints at both New Hope and Macedonia Baptist churches. "I still consider myself in ministry, even here," Terrance Carroll said, pointing to the House chamber. "We feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give sight to the blind, care for widows and orphans. Yes, that's a big function of what we do here."

Leaving aside the debatable (but for a liberal Democrat like Carroll, predictable) assumption that welfare is government's main job, the evangelical overtones here clash with the proper stance of government in our state and country as pluralistic and religiously neutral.

I like the new Speaker and expect good things from him, but this statement is ill-judged and highly inappropriate from someone in his position.

My own faith in Christ is central in all that I do, and while in the legislature I tried (with imperfect success, as many would tell you) to live it daily. But if I had ever talked this way while serving as Senate President in 2003-2005, I would have been barbecued to a crisp by Democrats and the media -- and deservedly so.

It will be interesting to see if a correction is forthcoming from Terrance Carroll, and if political watchdogs call upon him for the same strict separation between lawmaking and soul-saving that they would have demanded from me or any Republican.

Colorado Winners & Sinners of 2008

Before 2008 is forgotten, here’s our annual salute to Colorado winners and sinners of the old year. Denver hosted a successful DNC and sparkled for its 150th birthday. Coffman and Polis went to Congress after tough primaries. Ritter’s tax increase flopped. Hard times for Rockies baseball and the Rocky Mountain News. So begins one of my current TV mini-debates with Susan Barnes-Gelt. The full script for this month's series on Colorado Public Television is posted on the home page, left column partway down. Our exchange continued as follows:

SBG- The biggest winner, now that we are at the end of 2008, is the American public; witnessing the end of the Bush government. Eight years of being lied to while corporate goliaths and hedge fund managers got rich, have taken a huge toll.

JA- Enough with the Daily Kos talking points. Give me some hometown humor. How about Mark Udall making “Boulder liberal” into a badge of honor with his 10-point victory? How about Speaker-designate Bernie Buescher becoming election roadkill? How about Golden changing its name to Tincup after the Coors brewery goes away?

SBG- That's a good one and Commerce City sounds like a brand all America would love to adopt! Urbanism is a huge winner. With Obama's election - a true urbanist who thought about being an architect. C I T Y is no longer a 4-letter word!

Update by JA- After this piece was taped mid-December, the ball took another funny bounce for ex-Rep. Bernie Buescher as he was appointed Secretary of State. Overnight, with Ritter's help, he became resurrected roadkill. Is that what they mean by failing upward?

Adams 50 innovates for kids' sake

Innovation by local educators! Reading of it was like a personal Christmas present to me. The background dates from 2002, when I began an exciting journey in understanding our schools by entering an educational leadership program sponsored by Boulder Public Schools and presented by the University of Colorado at Denver. Every Wednesday I trekked to planet Boulder to be trained as a school principal. At that time, UCD even allowed non-educators, like me, to enroll if a spot was available. There was a spot and my eyes were soon opened to the terminology and day-to-day life of an educator. Most of my colleagues were from Boulder Valley School District. That in itself was a truly a learning experience, yet I found most of my fellow classmates unusually open-minded to others’ points of view.

On our first day of class, our professor from UCD asked us to imagine what kind of school we would like to lead. She gave us clay and other craft objects to physically design our ideas. I was surprised that most of the class designed schools similar to traditional schools. I, on the other hand not having much experience in traditional K-12 schools, designed a school based on performance standards.

In my model, students were differentiated by their ability to meet performance benchmarks. The classes were multi-aged so a bright first-grader could be educated with typical fourth graders if that was what was needed; conversely, a student struggling with literacy, could work at his/her own pace with like students. When a student surpassed building grades’ benchmarks, he/she could log on to a web-based program to continue meeting and surpassing appropriate benchmarks even though he or she may not be developmentally ready to progress to middle or high school.

Many schools are providing instruction for students who are not appropriately meeting benchmarks by adding a Response to Intervention model, but remain the same organizationally. Adams 50 (the five star folks) School District has tried to think outside of the box in some of its pilot schools and is requiring students to meet benchmarks with differentiated classes based on student needs, according to the Denver Post on 12/21.

They are basing this pilot program on Alaska’s Chugach District. Some teachers, where this model was tried in other school districts, complained that tracking student progress was cumbersome, but Adams 50 is teaching students to track themselves on personal charts. When performance standards and district benchmarks were implemented in Aurora Public Schools, many schools showed students how to track their progress and the students learned what each standard or benchmark meant. Voila! Student engagement equals student buy-in. Unfortunately, most of the schools remained traditionally organized.

In Joe Williams’ book, Cheating our Kids: How Politics and Greed Ruin Education, he sites anecdotal information how over and over again; students’ needs are rarely placed as a primary priority in many schools. This time, Adams 50 School District appears to be doing just that! I can not applaud them enough for thinking outside of the box for students’ sakes.