Affordable, reliable electricity is a cornerstone of economic prosperity and robust job growth.  Unfortunately, Colorado is rapidly losing its status in the mountain West as a state with low utility costs. 

That’s why I took the opportunity during the recent debate on the state budget to send a message to the Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) that it is failing in its mission of protecting consumers from Xcel rate increases.  And, that if it doesn’t get back on the job, it’s time to find a better way to protect Colorado from high utility costs.

Utility monopolies are overseen by two government bureaucracies in Colorado, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the OCC.  Initially created in 1913 to prevent powerful railroad barons from abusing the public, the PUC’s role was subsequently expanded to include the regulation of other utilities, such as Xcel and phone companies. 

In 1984, the legislature concluded that the PUC was doing an inadequate job of protecting consumers, so the OCC was established.  A “watch dog to watch the watch dog,” the OCC is funded through fees the PUC collects from the companies it regulates, which are ultimately paid by customers.

Over the last two years, I carried legislation that would have limited utility rate increases. In both years, the OCC sat on its hands and did nothing as the legislation died. 

OCC’s passivity was particularly galling this year.  HB-1102 would have capped Xcel rate increases resulting from the 2010 legislation that forced the conversion from coal to natural gas fired power plants to 10% over the next ten years.  As opposed to the 24-26% that the PUC and OCC consented to for this highly profitable utility.  And in very sharp contrast to the 4-6% increase that Xcel told legislators the measure would cost consumers while the bill was under consideration in 2010.

In an effort to gain OCC support for my rate cap bill this year, I met with its director and board.  While they said nice things about my legislation in the privacy of the meeting, they were no where to be seen during the committee hearing where the bill died. And Colorado consumers were once again given the shaft by Xcel.

As a way of sending a message, I offered an amendment to defund the OCC during the recent debate on the annual budget bill. I argued that the OCC was doing a poor job in its mission to protect consumers, that the $900,000 cost of the office was a duplicative waste, and that it was time for the OCC to “go out of business.”  To my surprise, the amendment passed; in practice, very few of the many amendments offered to the budget bill each year are actually adopted.

The amendment created quite a stir as the debate on the entire budget bill stretched late into the evening. At one point, I saw a text message that Doug Dean, the PUC commissioner, sent to another Republican law maker, saying I was “playing into the hands of Democrats.” 

Near midnight, Democrats challenged my amendment in a procedural move, saying that I was putting the interests of consumers in affordable energy at risk.  In reality, Democrats have repeatedly shown they care very little about affordable energy.  They are much more interested in promoting expensive, “green” energy- and consumers be damned.

When I rose to speak in response to the Democrat move, I began by saying that it was a lesson to me in being “careful what you wish for.”  My actual intent in offering the amendment was to send a message-a message that had already been been heard.

But, i continued, to use the relatively chaotic budget process to dramatically reshape state policy on protecting consumers from predatory monopolies was not prudent.  I concluded by supporting the procedural move, which passed unanimously.

The next morning during breakfast, I got an unexpected call. It was John Suthers, the Colorado Attorney General.  With an edge in his voice, he asked what I thinking of, trying to put the OCC out of business?  The AG has an interest in the fate of the OCC because it provides the office with attorneys.

A bit taken back, I simply repeated what I had said the night before: the OCC was falling down on its job of protecting consumers from unreasonable rate increases.

Apparently satisfied that I had no ulterior motives, the Attorney General wished me a good day and hung up.

And, indeed, I did have a good day. There was little doubt, given what I had heard from the PUC Commissioner and the Attorney General, that the message I had sent on behalf of consumers and affordable energy had been heard. Loud and clear.#fb

It doesn’t give me much satisfaction, but “I told you so.”

That is, it doesn’t give me much satisfaction that my repeated warnings during the 2004 sales tax election that there was no way RTD, as it promised, would be able to build FasTracks “On time and on budget.”  And no, it wasn’t that I, along with a handful of other outspoken light rail skeptics, were prophets of some sort.  We were simply aware that every other US city that had tried similar rail projects, from San Francisco’s BART to Washington DC’s Metro, had come in just the opposite: grossly over budget and badly behind schedule.

But what I failed to anticipate was just how dismal RTD’s bureaucratic mismanagement of FasTracks would actually be.  Rather than the $4.7 billion that RTD had said the 119 mile rail expansion would cost, it has now exploded to a stunning $7.8 billion.  And, instead of being finished in 2017 as originally promised, the projected completion date is now a mind boggling 2042. Which means that the youngest 18 year old voter/taxpayer in the 2004 election will be a “mere” 56 before all the trains are rolling.  Only RTD could claim that this is any way to run a railroad.

And now it appears that RTD is preparing to attempt to fool voters yet one more time and persuade them to double down on the original 0.4-percent sales tax and raise it another 0.4-percent so that this boondoggle can be completed not in 2017 as we were initially promised.  But in 2032!  Only 15 years behind schedule and twice the originally advertised taxpayer cost.  And that’s assuming that RTD is actually able to deliver as promised this time.

But you be the judge.  Given RTD’s track record, how likely is it that they will get it done on time and budget this time?

It’s because I am not prepared to let RTD’s campaign to double its tax subsidy go unchallenged that I have asked the State Auditor, Dianne Ray, to ask some hard questions of the FasTracks program and find out where all those millions of taxpayer dollars have gone.  Some of the things I believe taxpayers are entitled to know include:

• To what extent will FasTracks, assuming it is ever completed, relieve congestion?
• What percent of commuter travel will FasTracks represent compared to other means of transportation?
• What FasTracks contracts over $10,000 have been awarded and how much did those contract beneficiaries contribute to the pro-FasTracks election effort in 2004?
• Whether RTD’s original FasTracks study was intentionally biased in favor of rail over less costly and more flexible Bus Rapid Transit?  Which is, in fact, the less costly alternative that the RTD board is currently advocating for the trip to distant Longmont.
• Whether sales tax revenues have ever grown at a 6 percent annual clip for 13 consecutive years, as was assumed in the original 2004 financial plan?

RTD’s FasTracks project represents a squandering limited public resources without precedent in Colorado history.  By RTD’s own admission, FasTracks will never handle more than 1-2% of the daily trips generated in the Denver-metro  area.  If the nearly $8 billion spent on FasTracks had been spent more wisely, commuters all over Denver would be spending less time stuck in traffic, more time productively at work, and enjoying more of their kids’ after school soccer and baseball games.

Before one more dime disappears down the FasTracks rat hole with another job killing tax increase, it is imperative that the Colorado auditor be given the time to do her job and get to the bottom of RTD’s gross mismanagement of the current project.  Any campaign to raise the RTD sales tax yet again should be delayed until the audit report is issued.  So taxpayers can base their decision on facts.  Rather than RTD spin.

The Legislature’s top priority for 2012 is putting Coloradans back to work.  Our state has over 400,000 people out of work who desperately need something better for themselves and their families.

Unemployment among vets returning from Iraq or Afghanistan is nearly double the rate of the population at large.  Youth and minorities have an even tougher time finding work.

Yet every day, 150,000 illegal immigrants head off to work in Colorado. Many of them are doing so in defiance of Colorado law that mandates that employers verify the work eligibility of newly hired employees by checking paper based forms of identification, such as driver’s license or Social Security cards. While the current law was passed with broad, bipartisan support during the 2006 Special Session dealing with immigration reform, paper-based forms of identification are outdated and relatively easy to forge.

Colorado citizens and legal immigrants struggling to find scarce jobs deserve better. It is time we bring employment verification into the 21st century and mandate that all Colorado employers use the Internet based E-Verify system administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to better ensure that only those Coloradans who are legally entitled to work here are doing so.

E-Verify compares a worker’s name and Social Security number against federal data bases. It is free and takes only seconds for employers and employees alike to use. And, most importantly, it is extremely accurate: 99.9 percent of legal workers, whether U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, are verified to be authorized. Legal workers are NOT turned away. In fact, anyone, including legitimate job seekers, can go on the E-Verify website and run a self-check on themselves to make sure they are eligible and clear up any potential problems (such as identity theft) before applying for work.

E-Verify is already in widespread use in Colorado and the country at large.  Colorado agencies are required to use the system when hiring employees, as are businesses who want to do work for the state. Over 20,000 Colorado business sites and 700,000 across the nation use the system on a voluntary basis.  Nine other states have already passed legislation requiring private employers to use E-Verify, a mandate that the U.S. Supreme court has declared Constitutional.

The bill that we are proposing makes only a modest change in the current program administered by the Colorado Department of Labor. Under the 2006 legislation sponsored by Rep Judy Solano (D-Adams County) and Sen Bob Bacon (D-Ft Collins), employers are required to scrutinize and retain copies of federally defined identification documents for a new hire (such as a driver’s license, Social Security card, or passport), affirm that the employer has not falsified or altered the documents, and that he has not knowingly hired an illegal alien. The Colorado Department of Labor already conducts 1,000 random audits of employers each year to insure compliance. The fines for violations range from $150 and a warning/training up to $25,000 for chronic offenders.

Our legislation would simply substitute the simple and more reliable E-Verify program for the current paper based system that, given the enormous numbers of illegal aliens working here, is so obviously subject to abuse and evasion.

It is time we level the playing field for those employers who already do the right thing and voluntarily use E-Verify and require all employers to use the system that is least susceptible to fraud and abuse.  And, more importantly, the Legislature should act now to insure that the tens of thousands of Coloradans who so desperately need work in this difficult economy are not being forced to compete with the 140,000 unauthorized aliens who have no legal right to be employed in our state.

After yesterday’s Arapahoe County Republican convention and the meeting of my House District 37 nominating assembly, I am officially on the June 26 Colorado primary ballot.   And, because mine is the only name on the Republican ticket, it is an election I will win without expending time, money or energy.  From there, with my powder dry, I go head to head with whomever the Democrats name to run against me in the November 6, 2012 general election. As yet, my Democrat opponent is unknown to me.

This is not to say, however, that yesterday’s meeting of my nominating assembly wasn’t without drama.  It wasn’t.

By the time I arrived at Powell Middle School, the site for the convention, shortly after 8 a.m., the crowd was already streaming through the parking lot to get in line to be “credentialed,” i.e., to be officially recognized as a delegate entitled to cast a vote.

My credentials in hand, I walked through the school auditorium where many delegates were already sitting waiting for the speeches to begin. Continuing beyond the table where the GOP county chair, Joy Hoffman, was scrambling to resolve inevitable, last minute problems, I walked to the cafeteria beyond.  I began going from table to table where the many participating candidates (several other county races, in addition to mine, needed to be considered by separate, break out assemblies) had set up tables with coffee and donuts, hoping to attract undecided delegates and have a last opportunity to win their support.

With all the bustle and confusion, a county assemble does a passable imitation of a three ring circus.

At my table, I found my indefatigable volunteer coordinator, Rita Hyland,  who had arrived shortly after dawn to attend to the innumerable details that go into a successful county assembly.  Coffee in hand, I began talking with nearby delegates, some of whom I recognized, but more of whom I didn’t.  That’s true not only because there is a natural turn over of delegates from one biennial assembly to the next, but also because my district has changed dramatically due to this year’s reapportionment. Sixty to seventy percent of my new district is new to me.  And I to them.

Knowing this, I had spent many hours in the days before the assembly calling delegates, introducing myself and asking for their support.  While I wasn’t aware of anyone who intended to mount a primary challenge to this my fourth, and final run to represent House District 37, I wasn’t taking anything for granted.

Nonetheless, as I stood there talking, Rita came up, handed me a crude, black and white flier and asked, “Have you seen this?  Someone is running against you.”

My stomach, already nervous since the previous evening knowing that I had to address a room full of strangers the next morning, quickly went to an even higher state of alert.  According to the flyer, my challenger (who shall remain unnamed),  asserted that he was running because he believed it was desirable to have “competition” in the June 26 primary election.

For the next hour, I sought out as many House District 37 delegates as I could in the crowd-a bit like searching for needles in a hay stack.  Many of those I found reported that we had either talked on the phone or I had left a message.  After telling them of the challenge and my asking, “Can I count on your support?” they, to a person, responded “Yes.”

However, during nominating process during the actual assembly, it turned out that those delegates didn’t speak for everyone.  When the time came for placing names in nomination, the challenger stood, nominated himself, and turned to ask the crowd if anyone else agreed that there should be “competition in the primary.”  A smattering of hands were raised.  But when the chair of the committee asked if there was anyone willing to second the nomination, no one volunteered.  With that, the chair closed nominations.  And that was that-my opponent lost his chance to make the primary “competitive.”

I had the opportunity to speak briefly with my challenger after I finished my acceptance speech.  When I asked why he had done it, he said absolutely nothing about policy differences with me.  It, apparently, was about making the primary “competitive” simply for its own sake. Before we went our separate ways, he readily conceded I was going to win anyway, even if he had gotten on the ballot.

I agree.  I have made countless phone calls and raised about $35,000 for mailers, yard signs, and all the other expenses that are necessary to win an election in a district that has over 40,000 registered voters.  As far as I know my challenger has raised nothing. Nonetheless, if he had succeeded in his impromptu challenge, I would have spent a great deal of this money, time and energy, my own and those of my volunteers, to win a contested primary.  But to what end?  Just so we have a “competitive” primary?

According to a front page story in the March 10, 2012 edition of the Denver Post, liberal Democrat “Super PACs”, raised and spent 150 times more than their conservative Republican counter parts in the 2010 Colorado elections.  2012 is going to be more of the same; liberals will raise and spend far more than we do.  Because of President Obama’s misguided and failed policies, our country is at a tipping point.  Much further down our current path, and we are irreversibly on our way to socialism and economic stagnation.  And this is the time for conservatives to be fighting among themselves, wasting time, energy and money, just so we can have a “competitive” primary?  Liberals must be watching us and laughing up their sleeves.

Tax credits to encourage certain industries or business activities have a long and increasingly controversial record at the Colorado Capital.  Most notorious are “enterprise zones,” areas of the state where taxes are reduced to promote greater commercial activity.  Originally intended to help primarily rural, economically distressed parts of the state, these zones, which now cost $60 million annually, have grown from covering about 30% of the state to more than 70%.

Democrats have been most vocal in their opposition to what they derisively describe as “tax loopholes” or “corporate welfare.”  They claim to be particularly outraged by the impact these tax breaks have on school funding.  But that hasn’t prevented them from  sponsoring bills, even during this session, to had out more tax goodies to their pet businesses.  There are two recent examples that I find particularly galling.

The first, HB-1286 sponsored by Representatives Ferrandino (D-Denver) & Massey (R-Salida), creates special tax breaks for the film & TV industry. Why don’t I like this bill? Let me count the ways:

• Why should we favor this particular industry over all others? Especially when you consider how Hollywood’s output is so consistently morally suspect?
• If Colorado offers these credits, at a cost of $3 million per year, we will be competing with many other states who offer similar, even more lucrative incentives. Star struck witnesses who testified in favor of the bill readily admitted that when film makers consider where to shoot movies, they go to where the tax benefits are highest. Why give tax breaks to gypsy like companies who will take our money & run?
• A portion of the $3 million is awarded in the form of heavily subsidized, ultra-low interest loans to film production companies chosen by the state film bureaucracy.  During a recent hearing on the bill, the film “czar,” Don Zuckerman, asserted that these loans were virtually “no risk.”  But on further questioning by me, Mr. Zuckerman admitted that if a regular commercial bank (rather than Colorado taxpayers) was to lend money to these film companies, the interest rate would be in the range of 20-22%.  Scarcely an interest rate that reflects the complete absence of risk!

Unfortunately, HB-1286 has broad, bi-partisan support.  However, it is still in the process. I also believe as legislators learn more about this corporate give away, they are less likely to vote for it.  I urge you to contact your legislator & tell them to vote “NO!” on this stinker.

The second, HB-1132, sponsored by Rep Miklosi (D-Denver), was recently heard in the Finance Committee, on which I serve. It would have created extraordinarily generous tax benefits for arts-oriented businesses located in something called a “creative district.” (Where, in all likelihood, there will be a large number of tourist, curio shops selling T-shirts.)  These favored businesses, unlike all other Colorado companies, would have paid half as much in sales & income taxes, had this bill passed.

One of the witnesses testifying in support of the bill went so far as to say that one of her reasons for doing so was because it would allow her to make a larger contribution to her retirement plan. As if everyone in the state wouldn’t like their own special tax break to make it easier to save for retirement!

Fortunately, HB-1132 died on a nearly unanimous, bi-partisan vote. Given that the sponsor, Representative Miklosi, is in a tough race for Congress against Mike Coffman, the result was surprising: for Democrats to break ranks with their standard bearer is a good sign that HB-1132 was not merely a bad bill.  It was a really bad bill.

In my opinion, there are many reasons why special corporate tax breaks are a bad idea.

• They aren’t fair: why should we single out certain industries and areas of the state for preferential treatment?
• The tax code should be used to raise the revenues required to fund essential government services, not a toy for politicians to pick winners and losers.
• These intricate tax shelters usually favor big companies who can afford high priced tax advice over the small companies who are the bedrock of the Colorado economy and the businesses where most new job formation occurs.

My preference to our current dysfunctional system?  Let’s level the playing field and make Colorado the business friendliest state in the Union by getting rid of all the complex loopholes and use the money saved to lower everyone’s tax rate.

As much as I hate to admit it, the Denver District Court made some good points in the recent Lobato v. Colorado decision.  In its ruling, the court found that the system the state uses for funding public schools is “irrational and inadequate” and therefore violates the Colorado constitution.  The court arrived at this conclusion primarily on the weight of the costly reform mandates that the state has imposed on local school districts without providing them with the financial resources allegedly necessary make the reforms successful.

But while the court may have correctly diagnosed the problem of too many mandates, its solution, more state funding, is not just wrong.  It is also the rough equivalent of fighting fire with gasoline.  Moreover, the court grossly overstepped its boundaries by substituting its own judgment for the constitutional prerogative of the legislature to decide how to allocate the state’s budget.  And, no less importantly, the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to determine the appropriate level of taxation under the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR).

The court found that during the past five years the Legislature has enacted complex and difficult to implement mandates concerning content standards (reading, writing, math, etc.), student achievement targets (No Child Left Behind and the much maligned CSAP), and a teacher evaluation process (tenure reform). While these mandates apply to all school districts, the real purpose of most, if not all, of them has been to close the “achievement gap” that has persisted for decades at usually urban, minority schools.  But while none of these reforms have made a dent in closing the gap, they have added multiple layers of costly bureaucracy even in those districts and schools that have done a good job, all along, educating their students.

The Lobato court concluded that the answer to the persistent, complex problems of the achievement gap is simple: more money.   The decision ignored a whole host of other, profound disadvantages that many minority children labor under.  For example, 70-80% of black children are born to unwed mothers.  Hispanic children, many of whom have the additional challenge of a language barrier, must overcome similar hurdles at home: 50%, a figure that is rising rapidly, are born to unwed mothers.  With such a home life, is it surprising that only 47% of black males graduated from high school in 2008? Similarly, only 25% of US born Hispanics graduate from high school; 50% of non-US born Hispanics drop out.  Can we realistically expect our schools, regardless of the amount of money we spend, to overcome this kind of family dysfunction?

Moreover, even if more state money was the answer, the inevitable consequence of such a policy would be- even more state mandates.  The first rule of politics is the golden rule:  he who has the gold, makes the rules.  If the state, which already provides most of the funding for local school districts, provides yet more, local, elected school boards will inevitably become nothing more than rubber stamps to implement state mandates.  The Lobato court was correct in identifying “one size fits all” state solutions that don’t work. But rather than throwing more good state money after bad, the right course, going forward, is to return more control-and funding responsibility-to local school districts.

But the most outrageous aspect of the Lobato decision is how Sheila Rappaport, a low level, appointed Denver District Court judge, a position with virtual lifetime tenure, who never has to meaningfully answer to the electorate- a virtual empress in black robes-took it upon herself to decide that the state budget must be dramatically reshaped to favor school funding over all the other pressing needs of the state.  And, what is more, by asserting that funding is inadequate, Rappaport paved the way for a tax increase by judicial fiat-without the vote of Colorado citizens constitutionally mandated by TABOR.

It is my firm belief, and hope, that the Lobato decision will not stand.  More money will not correct the defects of misguided and ineffectual state mandates aimed at closing a minority achievement gap whose roots have very little to do with what goes on in classrooms.  The tragedy is that, although Lobato will almost certainly be overturned, Colorado taxpayers will have to foot $3-4 million in legal fees to prove Judge Rappoport wrong.

One of my more vivid memories as a member of the Colorado House came on a bright March morning in 2010.  On the way from my car to the capital’s north entrance, I heard the sounds of a rally on the west steps.  While a common occurrence, rallies pique my curiosity to to see who is demanding what from the Legislature.  But when I reached a point where I could see who was speaking and what they wanted, I quickly realized this was different.

There, before an enthusiastic crowd, both Republican and Democrat leaders of the General Assembly were lifting clasped, triumphant hands with representatives of the environment community and the natural gas industry.  They were demanding the quick passage of something they called the Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act.

More than surprised by what I saw, such a gathering of odd political bed fellows gave me the creeps. In fact, my first instinct was to grab for my wallet.

Now, nearly two years on in the implementation of this misguided legislation, I urge you to grab for yours as well.  And tell your legislator to reign in Xcel’s out of control utility bills by supporting legislation I am sponsoring to roll back the worst features of this blatant example of crony capitalism.

Also known as HB-1365, the Act mandated that low cost, still useful coal power plants be shuttered and replaced with more costly natural gas units.  The benefits, according to proponents, were obvious and numerous.  A better environment because natural gas is “greener” than coal (unless, of course, you’re concerned about fracking).  A better economy because higher demand for natural gas would create jobs in Colorado’s oil patch (and, incidentally, higher profits for gas companies).

And the best part?  These wonderful environmental and economic benefits would come at a negligible cost to utility customers. On multiple occasions, Excel representatives told legislative committees that utility bills would only increase 4-6% over 10 years, which was the “same electric rate increase that we expect to happen if the bill (HB-1365) does not pass. . .”

With such powerful political, environmental and industry backing, 1356 sailed through the House. Little more than a speed bump, I was 1 of only 12 of the 65 members who voted “No.” While it encountered stiffer opposition in the Senate, Bill “Global Warming” Ritter, eagerly signed it into law. From the Governor’s desk, 1365 quickly went to the PUC for implementation.

That’s where the wheels started falling off.  At Xcel’s urging, the PUC, the supposed consumer guard dog, approved a plan that called for a 24% increase over 10 years.  In other words, a 400-600% increase over the 4-6% estimate that Xcel representatives had given to the General Assembly no more than a few months before.

And, unless something changes, hard pressed Colorado rate payers will be be forced to pay the price for naive politicians who vote like they believe in free lunches.  That “something” is my bill which would roll back Xcel’s 24% rate increase to a more bearable 10%.  Which, while more than the 4-6% increase that Xcel promised, is a far cry better than the outrageous increase granted by Xcel’s lap dog, the PUC.

I am not a big fan of Occupy Wall Street.  But I have to give it credit for turning a spotlight on the cozy relations that too often exist between business and politics.  Crony capitalism at its worst, HB-1365 was passed at the expense of ordinary rate payers to benefit special interests, Xcel and the natural gas industry.   It should not be allowed to stand.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  — Mark Twain

What would you call it if a big oil company ran an expensive marketing campaign trying to justify charging higher gas prices in Colorado based on the fact that our citizens have higher average incomes that folks in most other states? You’d probably call it a load of baloney. And then get out your old hippie gear and join the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Now, what would you call it if some politicians launched an expensive marketing campaign arguing that you should pay more for schools simply because Coloradans earn more, on average, than people in most other states? Again, you might call it a load of baloney. But you would be closer to the mark if you called it Proposition 103.  That’s because the recent, ill-fated attempt to raise taxes was based largely on the argument that we aren’t paying enough for schools because hard working Coloradans have relatively high average incomes.

How does such an argument work? First, you take the average per-pupil spending in Colorado, which, according to a 2008 study done by the non-partisan Legislative Council, is $9,152.  Next, you compare that figure with average incomes in Colorado and all other states. Because of our high average income, we pay a relatively smaller portion of our income for education. Using this approach, the Legislative Council finds that we rank 47th among the states in education funding. Sounds alarming, doesn’t it?

But how do we rank when we just look at how much we spend, without regard to how much we earn?  Here, according to the Legislative Council study, we rank 34th.  While perhaps not great, a far cry from 47th.  And even further from the dead last ranking I heard some Prop 103 proponents make during the campaign.

But, and far more importantly, what difference does it really make how much we spend on schools? Shouldn’t we be far more concerned with how our kids are performing? When summer rolls around, we don’t ask to see our kids’ school budget.  We ask to see their report cards.

And by this measure, Colorado kids, as reported by the same Legislative Council study, are getting a good education. At both the elementary and high school levels, in both reading and math, they are performing above the national average.

In short, Colorado K-12 education is a great value. We spend less than the national average per pupil, but they perform at a level above their peers.

But virtually all we ever hear from proponents of more spending is how Colorado education is in crisis.  But since when is it a crisis when you get more and spend less? In the real world, that’s called a “bargain.” And where I come from, bargains are a good thing.

As Mark Twain said, it’s not easy separating fact from fiction when people start messing with statistics. But it’s important that we make the effort. I can virtually guarantee you that we haven’t seen the last of efforts to raise taxes in this very difficult economic environment.  And while it may, at some point, be desirable to spend more than the nearly 45 percent of the state budget we already spend on K-12 education, we should only do so based on something other than damned lies.

I was in Washington, D.C. recently for a weekend political conference.  By the time I got my rental car at Reagan National Airport and threaded my way through the late Friday rush hour, it was dark as I pulled to the curb in front of my downtown hotel.

As I struggled to figure out how to use the unfamiliar, “hi-tech”door handle, I heard a rapping at my window.  Looking to my left, I expected to see the bell hop.  Instead, I saw a street person-obviously wanting a hand out. With a growing sense of frustration, I waved him off and went back to trying to open the door.  (Only the federal government-or auto makers responding to threats of lawsuits- could devise “safety”regulations that could prevent someone who has been driving for more than 40 years from opening a car door.)

When I finally figured it out and the door cracked open, the panhandler was still there, nearly filling the narrow strip of pavement between the car and the lane of traffic roaring by beyond.  Peering in, he demanded a handout for the “homeless.” By now, my frustration had bested any anxiety I may have had about what the bum might do. I gave him a firm, impatient, “No” and pushed by. Without skipping a beat, he accused me of being “racist.”  He didn’t appear to be very smart, but I have to give him credit for knowing the one word before which, in our cowed, hypersensitive culture, every knee bows and every tongue confesses-to some usually imaginary, multicultural transgression.

Welcome to Washington, D.C.: the city increasingly run by, and for the benefit of, parasites.

On Sunday morning, the conference over, I went to the hotel front desk and asked about nearby churches.  Following the clerk’s directions, I strolled a few blocks up and over and came to the front of a traditional looking, small, and lovely chapel:  St. John’s Episcopal Church.  As beautiful inside as it was out, I scanned the bulletin as I waited for the service to begin.  I quickly learned that I was in “The Church of the Presidents”: since it opened in 1818, every President  has been a regular or occasional attendant.  http://www.stjohns-dc.org/index.php.  The service was memorable; it was the 10th anniversary of 9/11.  The small, but powerful choir flawlessly sang traditional (but difficult) hymns of the faith.  The thoughtful, deliberate liturgy was a welcome change from the barren improvisation that so often prevails at my evangelical, home church.

All in all, a highlight of my D.C. visit.  And, to make it even better, President Obama didn’t show up.  Perhaps he was at his home church that morning, imbibing the tender ministrations of Jeremiah Wright.

But the President wasn’t far from mind as I left the church.  Just to the left, a deep fly ball across Lafayette Park, was the White House.  I walked across the Sunday-morning-quiet park and the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue that, since 9/11, has been closed to traffic as part of “Fortress White House.”  Grasping the heavy, black bars that stood between the side walk and the lawn that ran up to the north side of the mansion, I gazed for a moment, before turning and walking to the left.  There, within a stone’s throw of the east wing of the White House was the squat, massive Treasury Department building.  Again, I gazed for a moment before turning around.  And, there, directly behind me, across Pennsylvania Avenue, the Bank of America.

Perfect: Welcome to Washington, D.C.: the city increasingly run by, and for the benefit, of parasites.

I could almost see a throbbing transfusion tube, engorged with the life blood of the vast county sprawling to the west, plunging into the bowels of the treasury before dividing, one branch going to suckle the squealing federal leviathan poised beyond the White House, the other crossing Pennsylvania Avenue to batten the crony capitalists of Wall Street.

I flew west, home to Denver, that evening.  Below me, in the gathering darkness, was a still fertile, productive land.  But, increasingly, it is drained, pallid and prostrate.  What happens next, in this the land that Lincoln called the last best hope of earth, all depends on what those productive people, those who aren’t parasites, decide to do with the tube sticking out of their forearm.