A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, April 17, on the Simpson-Bowles plans for debt reduction:
The discussion in Washington, D.C., has changed dramatically this year, from how to spend federal dollars to where to cut, both short-term and for the long run.
That seismic shift in political debate is necessary because we are rapidly approaching a point where our national debt could put our current economy, not to mention the fortunes of future generations, at great risk. The International Monetary Fund last week warned that the United States must get its debt under control quickly.
Furthermore, as Alan Simpson has said, this is different than the debt and deficit scenario of the 1990s. “We can’t grow our way out of this,” said Simpson, a Republican former senator from Wyoming. With Erskine Bowles, a Democrat and former adviser to President Bill Clinton, Simpson chaired President Barack Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission last year.
Together, the two men drafted a deficit and debt reduction plan that drew bipartisan support—and criticism. But it didn’t win enough votes on the 15-member commission to be formally submitted to Congress.
However, the so-called Gang of Six—three Democrats and three Republicans in the Senate—will reportedly introduce legislation based on the Simpson-Bowles plan.
For a variety of reasons, we believe the Simpson-Bowles plan is preferable to either the proposal proffered by President Barack Obama last week, or Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan, which was approved by the House of Representatives on Friday.
However, Ryan deserves a great deal of credit for moving the discussion forward. His plan to cut $5.8 trillion from the debt over the next 10 years forced Obama to offer his own plan, and it ensured that members of Congress would actually have to vote on a plan to significantly reduce the debt.
Among our problems with Ryan’s plan is that, in order to achieve the savings needed, it relies heavily on cuts to programs that serve the poor. According to the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, two-thirds of the cuts in Ryan’s plan would come from low-income programs, from food stamps to housing assistance to Medicaid.
The Simpson-Bowles plan, like Ryan’s, seeks to roll back federal spending to 2008 levels. But the discretionary spending cuts in Simpson-Bowles are more balanced, requiring cuts from every federal agency, including the White House and Congress. It would freeze federal pay for three years and reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent through attrition.
President Obama’s plan, unfortunately, offers few specifics on spending cuts. Instead, he urged Congress to appoint yet another committee to develop a list of cuts by June.
Obama’s plan also avoids major changes in Medicare and Medicaid, saying an appointed committee will be able to find enough cases of waste and abuse to significantly cut costs.
Both Simpson-Bowles and Ryan’s plan attack Medicare and Medicaid more aggressively.
Ryan’s plan to make Medicare a voucher system in which future senior citizens buy their own insurance using a voucher from Medicare, and to give states more flexibility by making Medicaid a block-grant program, have been lighting rods for criticism.
The Simpson-Bowles proposal to increase deductibles and copays for recipients will also anger some, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the programs, as Ryan would do.
Because Medicare and Medicaid are two programs significantly driving the deficit and future debt, changing them is critical. Simply hoping enough waste and duplication can be found is not adequate or realistic.
Finally, all three plans suggest reforming the tax code, but Simpson-Bowles offers the most detailed plan to eliminate tax breaks and reduce rates across the board. And, unlike Ryan’s plan, it would direct a great deal of the revenue raised from the changes toward deficit reduction. Ryan’s plan would use it primarily to reduce taxes.
Obama’s plan would reinstate pre-Bush tax rates for those making more than $200,000 a year. We don’t have a problem with that, in principle. But Republicans are correct that the increase could mean much higher taxes for many family- owned businesses that are already struggling in the current economy. They should be exempted.
The time is now to seriously attack deficits and the debt. And Simpson-Bowles should be the foundation for doing so.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, April 18, on the potential shutdown of the federal government:
The potential shutdown of the federal government was averted at the last minute April 8, but it brought up many questions about what the effects of a shutdown might be.
Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith caused much confusion by announcing he would lend deputies to help keep Rocky Mountain National Park open, even though he has no jurisdiction to do so.
Though his intentions were good—to prevent loss of business in Estes Park—had the shutdown occurred many people might have tried to visit the park, only to find it closed. Some might even have thought it was OK to trespass and possibly cause damage, which happened during the last government shutdown.
Confusion over the potential closure wasn’t limited to the national park.
Across the country, many military families wondered whether they would get paychecks. Social Security recipients wondered if they would get their checks. Other people wondered about the status of their income tax refunds or if government offices they needed to visit would be open.
The last government shutdowns came in 1995-96, when a similarly divided Congress bickered over spending priorities.
Like 15 years ago, the current political atmosphere in Washington, D.C., gives little confidence that legislators will reach future budget agreements in a timely manner. After all, the federal government’s fiscal year started Oct. 1, and they still haven’t worked out all the appropriations for the year that’s now more than half over.
The near-miss on April 8 did give people a chance to see how they might be affected by a shutdown.
Armed with that knowledge, people might want to make plans for possible closures and to set aside money in household budgets in case another shutdown looms.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Canon City Daily Record, April 18, on noncitizens voting in elections:
No one wants noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections, in Colorado or any other state. And it appears Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has the authority to deal with potential illegal voters.
So it’s not clear why Gessler is pushing for a state law to give him that authority or why he testified before the U.S. House Administration Committee that his recent study showed that nearly 12,000 Coloradans who weren’t U.S. citizens when they received their Colorado driver’s licenses later registered to vote in the state.
Gessler also testified that 4,947 of those residents voted in the November election. But his office didn’t take the extra step to determine how many of those voters had become U.S. citizens before they voted.
But, for the record, the Department of Homeland Security’s Yearbook of Immigration Statistics show that more than 32,000 Colorado residents became naturalized citizens from 2006 through 2009, the years Gessler used to come up with his numbers.
So what is the scope of the problem? Is there a problem?
Gessler also noted in his study that he thinks 106 noncitizens registered to vote before they obtained their driver’s licenses, though he didn’t determine whether any of them voted in November.
That appears to be the scope of the problem. And, according to a recent Denver Post story, the secretary of state’s office can take care of the problem without a new state law.
Gessler spokesman Rich Coolidge told the Post that state law doesn’t prevent Gessler’s office from determining whether noncitizens voted. The story also notes that the secretary of state’s office has access to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement records and could use them to check voters’ citizenship status.
All the pieces appear to be in place for the secretary of state to ensure that anyone who votes in Colorado is a U.S. citizen.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, April 14, on reforming state’s teacher evaluation system
Colorado has reached an important milestone in devising a new teacher evaluation system that will include student academic progress in measuring an instructor’s effectiveness.
But it’s just a step in a process that’s far from over. And unfortunately, there are many opportunities for those who disagree with the idea to sabotage it or water it down.
Continued vigilance and fidelity to the intent of Senate Bill 191, Colorado’s landmark teacher evaluation legislation, is necessary.
The law, which passed in 2010 despite furious opposition from the state’s largest teachers union, relies on growth in student academic achievement for half of a teacher’s evaluation. It also changes the way teachers earn tenure.
The most recent milestone in the conversion to this new system came Wednesday when a state panel presented the results of its work on how to define effective teachers and principals. It is more complicated than one might think, and we’re glad to see the panel’s work reflect that complexity.
The broad outlines the State Council for Educator Effectiveness delivered to the State Board of Education included 60 recommendations that the board will use to devise rules and regulations.
Those recommendations comprise an important foundational document for the work ahead.
Effective teachers will ensure “equitable learning opportunities and growth for all students.” And effective principals will be “responsible for the collective success of their schools.”
That sliver of the panel’s work provides an idea of the broader principles.
Next, the State Board of Education will issue rules, which are due in the fall. And the state Department of Education will get to work devising a model evaluation system, and creating measurement tools for subjects and grades not covered by the Colorado Student Assessment Program, or CSAP.
As the process continues, the shape of the evaluation system will come into focus, as will the cost. Both are crucial concerns.
Since Colorado is a local-control state when it comes to schools, the rubber will meet the road at the district level. Whether districts use the new evaluation process to, as one member of the panel told us, have the hard conversations is key to success of the system.
It will be a culture change for many schools, but principals must use the new evaluation tools—and teacher improvement supports—to help teachers improve or help them move along.
The cost of putting the system into action is something the state needs to be conscious of as well. At this point, a consultant has estimated districts could face an initial cost of $53 per student. Other costs could follow, and it could be particularly expensive to help those teachers deemed ineffective.
At a time when districts are facing state funding cuts, those will be difficult costs to absorb. It’s unfortunate the state did not win a Race to the Top federal grant—an opportunity scuttled by opponents of the teacher evaluation bill, including the Colorado Education Association.
Perhaps there are other federal grants or funding sources that state officials can pursue. Grant givers may find this state’s efforts worth funding since Colorado’s law and evaluation system are leading-edge reforms being replicated around the country.
There’s a long road ahead before a new way of looking at teachers and principals is fully deployed in Colorado. We hope the ensuing steps are as sound and purposeful at this one.
Editorial:
