Safeway shopping list for Ritter

For Bill Ritter, Ken Salazar's move from Senate to Cabinet is more a problem than an opportunity. His appointment to replace Salazar could topple dominoes among current officeholders, antagonize powerful also-rans, rile factions within the Democratic party, and complicate Ritter's own reelection in 2010. That's assuming he names a rising politician who wants to serve more than two years and run for the seat in his or her own right. The safe way out would be for Ritter to pass up anointing the prom king or queen and appoint a qualified short-termer -- someone with proven credentials but pledged to no further electoral ambitions.

Former senators Gary Hart and Tim Wirth along with former governors Dick Lamm and Roy Romer would all fit the bill. My personal favorite is Lamm. Just imagine the stir his truth-telling about a common culture and illegal immigration would cause in Harry Reid's caucus. But for that very reason, Lamm probably wouldn't get the nod even if Ritter opts for what I call the Safeway shopping list.

Then my next choice is Roy Romer. The old warhorse, just turned 80 but with the energy of a 60-year-old, tried for US Senate way back in 1966 and was aced out of it again in 1992 by Ben Campbell. Romer is the preeminent elder statesman of Colorado Democrats, would represent Colorado wisely and honorably for the next 24 months, and well deserves this honor as the capstone of his career. (All of which I say despite, or partly because of, the licking he gave me in our 1990 contest for governor.)

The downside, from a Democrat point of view, would be no incumbent for them to try and "reelect" as the 2010 campaign gears up in coming months. But since that campaign is upon us anyway, why shouldn't the Dems live up to their name and welcome an openly democratic selection process for Salazar's successor?

As Illinois and New York embarrass themselves with grossly undemocratic, if not illegal, grappling contests for their open Senate seats, Colorado could set a refreshingly different example.

How about it, Gov. Ritter? I like the sound of Senator Lamm or Senator Romer.

Bell Policy Center in denial

"Restoring fiscal sanity to state government" was the hook for donations to The Bell Policy Center in a solicitation I received from them last week via US mail. That slogan was printed on the envelope and highlighted again in Bell's letter cosigned by former Colorado Supreme Court justice Jean Dubofsky and my onetime state Senate colleague Penfield Tate III. The pitch starts by trumpeting, without specifics, this year's "progressive victories [which] will make change possible for all Coloradans." Presumably this means the state's support for Obama, Udall, and Markey as federal candidates, since Bell then admits "tough lessons [from] the failure of several ballot measures" including the TABOR-busting Amendment 59 -- busted decisively by voters -- as well as the defeat of a sales tax hike under Amendment 51 and an energy tax hike under Amendment 58.

In this context, the letter's first line, "Congratulations on a job well done," has the hollow ring of a surgeon claiming the operation was a success but the patient died. Colorado taxpayers can only hope for more such jobs well done from the spending lobby, after the opposition to Amendment 59 won big despite being outspent something like 50 to 1.

Really the whole letter was a most amusing read to brighten my Sunday amidst the sad reality of Bush making nice with the UAW. The Bell promises all of us who donate (sorry, I won't be one of them) a productive 2009 with "in-depth research and analysis [toward] understanding how Coloradans assess the state's fiscal condition."

Come on, guys, you could get a pretty good idea of that by just thinking with an open mind about what message voters were sending with the rejection of Amendments 51, 58, and 59. Seems to me it was a message for the legislature and governor to make do with existing revenues -- prioritize better and spend smarter -- so that working families can keep scrimping their own recession-stressed budgets without a heavier tax burden.

But then, recession is apparently not on The Bell's radar. "These tough economic times" are referred to in this fund appeal only with relation to Center employees "tightening our belts to ensure that we operate as efficiently as possible." Okay, so far so good -- but neither the substance of the letter nor the content of Bell's website acknowledges that the very same prescription is needed for Colorado's fiscal sanity.

Maximizing revenue, not tighter belts and greater efficiency, seems to be their exclusive focus as far as government is concerned. A search of the website turns up nary a word of analysis on why Amendment 59 was crushed and what that might mean for "sane" policies going forward.

What we have here is a think tank suffering from groupthink -- a shrink in denial.

Opportunities abound in Rocky sale

As by now everyone knows, the Rocky Mountain News has been put on the block, This at a time when the Tribune Company has filed forChapter 11, when over 30 papers are for sale nationwide, and there don't seem to be any buyers for large-market papers.

The business reasons for this have been chewed over ad infinitum, but the chief culprit is declining ad revenue, which only looks to get worse. (I'd also suggest brand equity; the Rocky used to win the lion's share of the journalism awards, but the Post had a better brand, in part because broadsheets seem to carry greater credibility.)

Editorially, this is an opportunity.

It's an opportunity for center-right bloggers, who will now be able to go after the Post as it inevitably spins off to the left, becoming our version of the "Strib" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune).

It's an opportunity for us in the Colorado blogosphere to do more original reporting, since it's possible the Rocky won't be there to do it.

It may be a big opportunity for the Examiner, which may try to pick up some of the loose talent soon to be running around Denver looking for work. The online paper is based here in town, and could rapidly turn its local edition into the flagship for the country.

It's also an opportunity for the talent at the Rocky, who could try the same thing on their own. Shed the national reporting, bring in some entrepreneurial-minded management, ditch the printing presses and expensive delivery system, and turn the paper into an online, state- and local-oriented newspaper. Charge a nominal fee for a subscription, and go back to a no-holds-barred style, that takes on the Post directly.

Colorado pension plan in trouble

As some of you may have heard, PERA, Colorado's Public Employee Retirement program, has got a little problem. At latest report, its obligations were down to being about 60% funded, a couple of decadesout, down from 80%, which is considered fully-funded. This is before taking into account paper losses from real estate and other non-equity investments.

The reason that being underfunded 30 years out is a problem is that there are still bills to pay today, and that at some point you start paying out money faster than it can grow. One day, you wake up, and the seed corn is gone and the retirees are at the door.

Yesterday's Denver Post cites a 2004 State AG's report to the effect that there may be some legal limitations to what PERA can do. In all likelihood, benefits to current retirees are sacrosanct, barring a constitutional amendment (aren't you now glad that we rejected Referendum O?) to permit a reduction of benefits.

New hires should be put into the 401(k) without even the option of a defined-benefit plan. Those at or approaching retirement age should probably not have their benefits tinkered with. But some combination of higher contributions by employees, lower benefits, and a higher retirement age (really, who gets to retire on full bennies at 57?) will probably be required.

PERA's Board may have to show to a court's satisfaction that all this is necessary to prevent major street corners from being overrun by former state employees and the inevitable tin cup shortage. At the same time, there's no question that PERA has been operating under one of those unspoken assumptions that the taxpayers will always be there to bail them out, if necessary. Thus the somewhat rosy 8.5% growth assumptions underlying their projections.

We'll probably have to await the 2008 Annual Report to see exactly how bad things are, but there's no question that the sooner we deal with this the better. After all, better to ask public employees now to contribute more to their own financial security than to ask you, 15 years down the road and a few years away from your own golden years, to work for a few more years.

Ritter's fiscal grade is a D

Bill "Recession" Ritter, as disgusted House Republicans now call Colorado's chief executive, managed only a D in the Cato Institute's fiscal policy report card on the nation's governors for 2008. Chris Edwards of Cato said Ritter's spending record was above average, but his grade was pulled down by two recent attempted tax hikes, the school property tax case now before the state Supreme Court and the energy severance proposal defeated by voters this month.

The complaint by a Ritter spokesman that the study wasn't "neutral or unbiased" loses force in light of the well-mixed partisan standings, including a No. 3 ranking given Gov. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a No. 40 ranking for Gov. Butch Otter, R-ID. Ritter stood 26th out of 46 governors ranked.

A partial list of rankings is here. News story from the Rocky is here. This link shows the full study.