Archive for the 'Rocky Mountain News' Category

Tally of syndicated pundits

Monday, September 17th, 2007

In my column Saturday, I wrote that the Rocky and Post do not run more columns by conservative syndicated columnists than by liberal pundits, based on my two-week analysis.

Some readers wanted to see my tally of pundits. Here it is:

 

Paper
Date
author
Left, Leans Left, Center, Leans Right, Right
News 31-Aug NONE
News 1-Sep Dale McFeatters C
News 1-Sep Garrison Keilor L
News 2-Sep Amy Goodman L
News 2-Sep George Will R
News 3-Sep Krauthammer R
News 4-Sep Roger Hernandez LL
News 4-Sep Robert Samuelson LR
News 4-Sep Jay Ambrose R
News 5-Sep Martin Shram LL
News 6-Sep George Will R
News 7-Sep Ellen Goodman L
News 8-Sep Keilor L
News 8-Sep David Brooks LR
News 9-Sep Amy Goodman L
News 9-Sep George Will R
News 10-Sep Krugman L
News 10-Sep Krauthammer R
News 11-Sep George Will R
News 12-Sep NONE
News 13-Sep Samuelson LR
Post 31-Aug E.J.Dionne LL
Post 31-Aug Linda Chavez R
Post 1-Sep None
Post 2-Sep David Ignatius C
Post 2-Sep Bob Herbert L
Post 3-Sep NONE
Post 4-Sep NONE
Post 5-Sep Bob Herbert L
Post 5-Sep Rubin Navarrette LR
Post 6-Sep David Broder C
Post 6-Sep Maureen Dowd LL
Post 7-Sep E.J.Dionne LL
Post 7-Sep Froma Harrop LL
Post 8-Sep NONE
Post 9-Sep David Ignatius C
Post 9-Sep Neal Peirce C
Post 9-Sep Leonard Pitts C
Post 9-Sep Cal Thomas R
Post 10-Sep NONE
Post 11-Sep E.J.Dionne LL
Post 11-Sep Linda Chavez R
Post 12-Sep Froma Harrop LL
Post 12-Sep David Brooks LR
Post 13-Sep David Ignatius C
Post 13-Sep Thomas Friedman C

 

The big picture and the tax-rate freeze

Monday, September 17th, 2007

Colorado Media Matters noted that the Rocky, in reporting the higher-than-expected revenue from the property-tax-rate freeze, did not state that property taxes will actually go down in 49 districts.

But as Republicans roll out attacks on the tax-rate freeze, journalists need to keep the big picture in front of the public.

When the Republicans attack the property-tax-rate freeze, Reporters should ask how the GOP would solve the state school finance mess.

In this case, do Republicans favor repealing the tax-rate freeze, just because revenue may exceed expectations? And if so, what’s their solution?

 

What would Gallagher do?

Thursday, September 13th, 2007

City Auditor Dennis Gallagher felt compelled to put out a news release warning about higher taxes in the wake of the property tax-rate freeze and Denver’s bond package and tax increase to fund infrastructure improvements.

He told the Rocky he was just stating the facts, but what about the fact that without these tax adjustments, the state school fund goes bankrupt in 2011, and the ctiy’s infrastructure crumbles away.

Maybe Gallagher, with his historical involvement in limiting property taxes, thinks that the tax-rate freeze is regressive. Who knows what he thinks, because reporters haven’t asked him. It’s time they did.

I’d welcome a news release from Gallagher stating what he’d do to solve the state school fund mess and the city’s infrastructure problems.

 

Tuesday, September 4th, 2007

In my column Saturday, I didn’t discuss the possibility that protesting could generate increased media coverage of the DNC.

Don’t count on it. If there is protesting, it will be minor. And if there are arrests, I bet the numbers will be small and the actions peaceful and therefore not attracting Seattle-WTO-like coverage.

Someone told me she thought the DNC would get more coverage because it’s in the West. Yup, she’s a Democratic political consultant, and she forgets that the real world doesn’t care about speculation that western states could decide the 2008 presidential election, at least not enough to drive ratings. So this issue, while obviously important, won’t affect media coverage of the DNC.

Here’s the full email text of retired 9News anchor Ed Sardella’s thoughts on media coverage of the Democratic National Convention.

I think the downward spiral of interest in and coverage of orchestrated, suspense-less conventions will continue on the national and local level.  Denver media may enjoy an unusual level of interest just because the Dem convention is here.

I predict there will be less coverage than 2004, and that print will rely on their outsources more than ever before. I can’t comment specifically on the number who will attend but I think it will be down significantly from 2004.

Back in the heyday of TV news with big budgets, it was worth the expense to stations on the local level to have their anchor seen live in front of the banner at the podium that said, “Democratic (or Republican) National Convention.” I had personal experience with that. At the conventions I was sent to in the 80’s, it seemed I started hearing “WRAP” in my ear as soon as I and the banner appeared on the screen together. The importance of the shot far exceeded the content of the report. Those days are gone. I sense local stations will not send people to the conventions in large numbers not only because of the financial consideration but out of conviction that few, if any, watching at home will care… banner or not.

Three other factors in the equation may be worth mentioning. First, the circus that is presidential campaigns has crossed the line into the theater of the absurd in the minds of hoards of citizens because of the early campaigning and the childish and frantic obsession on the part of the states to be first or early with their primaries. I heard reports this week that all will be decided by March, if not sooner.  That will leave months before the conventions for people to put the campaign completely out of mind.

The second factor is the location of the conventions. I have had a number of print people tell me that the attractiveness of the venue has a lot to do with the intensity of the lobbying for the assignment in their newsrooms. Perhaps that is an element of the decision making process that is underestimated. How will this year’s locations be seen by reporters who might have the option (and luxury) of going or not going?

Third, and unknown, is to what degree, if any, the candidates’ reliance on new media to attract young potential voters will succeed. I am on the pessimistic side of center.

 

 

Ward Connerly Denies He’s Right-Wing

Tuesday, July 10th, 2007

In my column on Sat., I claimed that Ward Connerly, who’s backing an initiative for the Nov. 2008 Colorado ballot dismantling state affirmative action, is a “right winger.” In the email pasted below, which he gave me permission to post, he denies this.

 But if you check out his campaign contributions on opensecrets.org, you find that he’s more aligned with the hard right of the Republican party than any moderate. (caveat: I did not confirm, with 100 percent certainty, that the person who sent this was, indeed, Ward Connerly.)

Mr. Salzman,

I acknowledge that you will be engaged as an opponent in the campaign to end distinctions by the government based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, in public employment, public education, and public contracting.  The Supreme Court called this practice “race preferences.”  Thus, it will be central to your strategy to play games with words, inasmuch as it will be a virtual impossibility for you to prevail on the merits of the issue.  I was amused, however, that you characterize me as a “right-winger.”  For your information, I support “affirmative action” based on socio-economic conditions; I support equal rights for gays/lesbians; I opposed Proposition 22 in California that sought to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.  Does this fit the stereotype of a “right-winger.”  Moreover, our initiative was approved in California by a margin of 55-45; in Michigan 58-42; and in Washington 59-41.  None of these s tates are loaded with “right-wingers.”  If honesty is of little value to you, perhaps the reality of what is going on in our nation will be of such influence on you.

Best,
Ward Connerly

Andrews’ again says he was duped

Sunday, June 10th, 2007

Former Senate President John Andrews writes that I called him a liar in my column yesterday. In fact, I wrote that he’s either a liar or seriously confused. I didn’t suggest that he could be both, which may be closer to the truth. But there really could be some explanation.

We don’t know, because Andrews hasn’t explained how Sen. Norma Anderson used “sleight of hand” to trick the former Senate Prez and other Republicans into voting for the tax-rate freeze in 2004, when Republicans not only overwhelming supported it but also debated it. See post below.

 

2004 CO Senate Debate on Tax-Rate Freeze

Friday, June 8th, 2007

Dick Wadhams’ has proven himself to be a master at yucky campaigning. But Wadhams’ dream to be the next Karl Rove took a hit when the word “Maccaca” came out of the mouth of Virginia U.S, Senate candidate George Allen. Wadhams was Allen’s campaign manager, and Allen lost his Senate bid, thanks in part to his Maccaca line.

After the 2006 election, Wadhams came back to Colorado, where he became Chair of the State Republican Party. He’s been looking for slime to throw at Colorado Democrats. It seems that he believes he’s found some really good slime to nail them with.

He’s trying to use the Democrats’ efforts to clean up the state’s school finance mess against them in the next election. The Dems passed a law, signed by Gov. Bill Ritter on May 9, 2007, that freezes planned reductions in most property taxes statewide. If property taxes would have been reduced as planned, the state would have been forced by law (Amendment 23) to continue increasing funds for K-12 school funding, even though less and less money would have been collected from property taxes to pay for this. (The state school fund was projected to face a $100 million deficit by 2012.)

As a result, a larger and larger portion of K-12 school funding would have come from other state funds, depleting funding for other budget priorities, like higher education, healthcare, and more. Democrats have fixed this mess, for now, by freezing most property tax rates. But the Independence Institute says it will sue to stop the freeze, claiming that it must be approved by voters because it’s a tax increase. Dems counter that voters have already approved it. Now back to Wadhams. He’s licking his chops, according to a Rocky headline, because he’s planning to accuse the Dems in the next election of increasing taxes based on their support for the tax-rate freeze. Gov. Bill Ritter responded this way to the political heat. Denver’s news media has downplayed the fact that, in 2004, the Republican-controlled Senate approved the tax-rate freeze.

The Post reported that four current members of the Colorado Senate voted against the tax rate freeze this year, but voted for it in 2004. However, these Senators were not interviewed to explain their flip flop. Instead, the Post interviewed Sen. Andy McElhany, who explained the flip flop of his four Republican colleagues by saying that they were, at worst, confused. McElhany opposed the measure both in 2004 and this year.

Outside the Legislature, some high-profile Republicans support the tax-rate freeze. There’s this support, too. 

The News reported that former Sen. Norma Anderson was the Senate Republican who pushed the tax-rate freeze in 2004. Rep. Keith King was “instrumental,” according to the News, in removing the tax-rate freeze from the bill.

John Andrews was Senate President in 2004. He also voted for the tax-rate freeze in 2004. A Post editorial highlighted his flip flop. Today, Andrews blames Anderson for using “sleight of hand” to push the tax-rate freeze through the Senate. Andrews says that, thanks to Anderson, he cast an ill-informed vote for the freeze. This was reported here and here.

Anderson, who’s no longer in the Senate, told me that, in her experience, legislators pay attention when property taxes are under consideration by the Legislature.

And there’s evidence that, in fact, Senate Republicans were paying attention to the tax-rate freeze in 2004, despite Andrew’s claim that Anderson duped the Republicans.

The tax rate freeze was the subject of a raucous debate on April 7, 2004, in the Senate chamber featuring Sens. McElhany, Anderson, Ron Tupa, and Ron Teck.

Here’s the transcript:
 

April 7, 2004

9:15 amColorado SenatePresent …• 33Absent/Excused …• 2; Gordon, VeigaSenator Taylor is acting as Chairman. Sen. McElhany: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Yes, I would ask for a no vote on severed section 2. What’s happening here is that, and what you don’t have benefit of is the fiscal note from the Appropriations Committee [“They have it” is heard in background] Is it in this- It shows that the effect of this part of the amendment has the effect of freezing the mill levy where it is right now on property tax assessments across the state. And when-. What happens when that mill levy freezes then as -. The way it works now, as these assessments go up, in order to stay within the Constitutional limits, as assessments go up, the mill levy drops. And if you adopt this portion, it freezes the mill levy. And when you freeze the mill levy, then, if you look at your fiscal note, what that does it will cost property tax payers an additional $18 million dollars the first year. And then, after that, as property values increase that becomes more and more dramatic, amounting to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars over a five- to ten-year period.Sen. Anderson is saying that this is not an increase. It’s just eliminating a decrease. And it depends on the property tax classification and the property tax jurisdiction and what’s happening with the value of your own property, depending on what happens.

But if you freeze this, what it does is it saves the state money at the expense of people paying property taxes. Now that’s pure and simple. So that’s what you’re voting on if you vote in favor of this, and I’d ask for a no vote.

Chairman: Somehow, something tells me, Sen. Anderson has a different discussion on this.

Sen. Anderson: Sen. McElhany, you don’t understand it at all because you weren’t here in …94 when we put this in the statute. What we put in the statute, and one of the big reasons-. There’s two reasons that we’ve transferred costs from local government to the state, from the school district to the state. There’s two reasons. One is Gallaghar, which you love to talk about assessements, and that’s wonderful, and this has absolutely nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing. The other is, we put in 94 a constant reduction of mill levy into the statute, and if you stop reducing the mill levy, you stop shifting the cost of school finance to the state. So what we’ve done over the years, we’ve gone from 40 percent of funding from the state to 62 percent. And what I’m trying to do is stop at the 60 or 62 percent, thank you very much. And stop dropping that mill levy when it should be paid at the local level where they have the schools.

Sen. McElhany: Sen. Anderson, I think we agree on one thing. And what this amendment would do is it stops the mill levy from dropping. Then, as property values go up, you’re gonna pay more in taxes because your mill levy doesn’t drop any more.

Sen. Anderson: You’re going to pay more in taxes when the value goes up anyhow, whether this is here or not, Representative McElhany.

Chairman: (Corrects Sen. Anderson’s use of the word “Representative”) Senator McElhany.

(background laughing and “woooo.”)

Sen. McElhany: (laughing) Thank you, Representative Anderson.

(laughing in background)

Chairman: You’re both out of order. Sen. McEhlhany. [Because they referred to each other as “Representative,” not “Senator.”]

(more laughing in background)

Sen. McElhany: (laughing) I would just ask for a no vote.

(More laughter)

Sen. Ron Tupa: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Sen. McElhany. That’s vintage dragon lady from the House, as you well know. I was going to ask, how does your back side feel?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I’m glad someone else is taking some heat from Sen. Anderson. It’s not just me. But on this one, Sen. McElhany, Sen. Anderson is correct. I think what she’s trying to do is stop that perpetual shifting of costs from the local share of school finance to the state share. And what she’s saying is it’s inherently inequitable what’s continuing to happen, that the entire state is paying more and more and the locals are paying less and less. And Sen. Anderson, I think, is trying to slow if not stop that from occurring. And so somebody’s going to end up paying for school finance. What you’re saying is that is should be and it’s appropriate for the state to pick up more of the tab. And what I think what a lot of us feel is it’s actually more appropriate for the locals to pay more of their costs to get their kids through school. So, I will be supporting the Anderson, I think it’s the Committee report on this. You’re asking for a no vote and I will be asking for a yes vote on that section that you’re striking.

Sen. Anderson: And Sen. McElhany, I apologize. I got carried away. I remember you in the House. We debated there.

Sen. McElhany: Thank you Senator Anderson. Apology is not necessary. I just enjoy re-living some of these experiences, although it would be just as enjoyable not reliving them. And anyway, I would say the shift from the local level to the state level is for all kinds of different reasons. The fact that the state has partly chosen and partly been forced to fund schools at a higher and higher level, whereas the local jurisdictions and school districts have been inhibited for a whole lot of different reasons from doing that, one reason being that at some point we take their property tax away from them and equalize it across the state. But that goes on and on, and what this simply does is the local property tax payer is going to end up paying more money if you vote for this part of the amendment, and I’d ask for a no vote and we can move on.

Sen. Anderson. And I ask for a yes vote because what it does is stop the cost shift and it also does not increase. It stops the decrease.

Sen. Teck. Mr. Chairman, I was a little concerned I was stepping in between Senators McElhany and Anderson there. I was afraid I might get hit. I just wanted to add my support to Sen. Anderson on this and ask for an aye vote on this issue.

Chairman: Further discussion on the severed section two. Seeing no further discussion. All those in favor say aye (ayes heard in background). Those opposed no. (one no heard in background.)

This debate ended in a voice vote, which is in accordance with the normal rules for a Second Reading.

In the end, the School Finance Bill (HB04-1397), which contained the tax-rate freeze amendment, passed the Senate by a recorded vote of 29-6, with overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats. Andrews, as Senate President, voted for the bill. Those who voted against it were: Veiga, Tapia, McElhany, Lamborn, Grossman, Groff.
 

 

Rosen wouldn’t fire Gunny

Friday, May 25th, 2007

I asked KOA’s Mike Rosen about his column in today’s Rocky.

I wrote: “You wrote in today’s Rocky that you’d have fired Churchill for what he said on and off campus, because his free speech rights are much broader in the Constitution than in his job. Would you also have fired Gunny Bob for his bigoted statement that Muslim immigrants, including naturalized citizens, should be tagged and stripped of their civil rights? This discrimination is apparently forbidden under Clear Channel’s employee code of conduct. Thanks for your views on this.”

Rosen replied: “No, I wouldn’t fire him. It would certainly be KOA’s prerogative to fire him, or me, if it chose.  But Gunny isn’t a college professor operating under a scholarly code of conduct at a taxpayer-funded institution.  He’s a talk show host with strong opinions employed by a private sector company. Have you listened to Keith Olberman or Air America lately? I disagree with your assertion that it violates Clear Channel’s employee code of conduct or FCC restrictions, for that matter.  Perhaps you could show me exactly what you’re referring to.  My understanding is that for on-air personalities, the policy relates more to language and off-color subject matter than to political opinions.  Gunny’s proposal was harsh, and goes farther than I would, but his language wasn’t obscene.”

 

Assault on the Rocky?

Monday, April 9th, 2007

 

The Rocky
      

Is this the future of the Rocky?

Or its past?

Or is this what happens when conservatives attack the alleged liberal media?

Rocky Layoffs

Wednesday, March 21st, 2007

The Rocky is offering “voluntary separation” packages to 20 senior staffers.

Click here.