In the funny game of democratic politics, is it better to make a bold push in one direction, or to try to bring diverse interests together around a “Grand Bargain”? When it comes to Johnston’s monumental effort, the question is being played out before our eyes. The idea is to tie “bold” school finance reform to a “bold” $1 billion tax increase proposal on November’s ballot.

Ed News Colorado reported on last Thursday’s feedback session Johnston’s office sponsored, where he heard lots of questions and lots of concerns. Former State Board of Education member Randy DeHoff stressed a reasonable point that the overall effort really isn’t so bold on reform. He described it fairly as “a lot more money going into a 19th century system.”

At the same time, some supporters of “revenue enhancements” or “increased investments” to K-12 education expressed doubts, insisting that the $1 billion target wasn’t high enough. Johnston talked about internal poll results that showed asking for more money would be fatal to the whole proposition. He framed 2013′s “Grand Bargain” as the vanguard of a longer-term effort.

“What I want to do is make that initial investment and then get a chance for us to track our results and see how we’ve done, and then help us inform the next investment,” the senator assured the crowd of 150 or more.

Rollie Heath, Johnston’s senior Democratic colleague on the Senate Education Committee, echoed the theme in an apparent effort to reassure wavering support from the Left. “How do you eat an elephant one bite at a time? This is not eating the elephant,” he said. “This is beginning to take a bite. That’s why I tried to do [Proposition] 103. Let’s at least start, because if we don’t start, we’re never going to get there.”

Two months after 103, Senator Heath’s 2011 tax increase campaign, burned up in the meteoric flames of voter anger, a Denver district court judge ignored key parts of the state constitution and ruled that the state underfunds K-12 education by $2 to $3 billion per year.

State officials appealed the early 2012 Lobato ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court, saving the legislature from having to comply with the decision. At least for the time being. Never mind PERA’s costly retirement contribution burden. Never mind the growth in spending on non-instructional personnel. Never mind that cost-saving options like scholarship tax credits are off the table.

Even if Johnston’s plan succeeds, his school finance reform bill passes the General Assembly and 50.1% of voters approve an income tax hike, he acknowledges discovering recently that the schools’ gain (and taxpayers’ pain) wouldn’t get into gear until 2014.

“It’s slow, even when you’re going fast,” Johnston explained.

After nearly two full years of the School Finance Partnership and untold number of meetings, technical discussions, and feedback sessions, the goal still seems far away. Trying to push through needed changes to the School Finance Act by joining those changes at the hip with a bigger tax bill still appears a tough sell.

Hence, a pep talk from Senator Heath to keep the fragile coalition from splintering apart. “That means we can’t equivocate,” he lectured the audience. “But we’ve got to be honest, is it going to give everything that you want? No. Heck no. Is somebody going to get a little more than the neighbor next door? Yes.”

One next door neighbor that spoke up loudly last Thursday were charter school parents and leaders, who saw in the first draft an unsatisfying solution to the existing financial inequities most of them face. Some suburban school officials additionally have raised their own serious concerns about a new formula that drives state dollars away from cost-of-living expenses and twice rewards high-poverty districts for their low-income students.

Official numbers have been hard to come by, but the best estimates show property and income taxpayers from wealthier areas picking up a disproportionate burden for very little or no return to their local K-12 schools. Districts like Denver and Aurora figure to hit the jackpot.

Combined with the very real concern that most of the dollars would be backfilling through a $600 per student “State Education Investment” and full-day kindergarten funds, with little tied directly to innovation, the centrifugal force on the bill’s political support could be felt around the room.

Now it’s back to the drawing table. Word has spread that the second draft (the official bill) will drop in the next couple days. Eager eyes wait to see whether and how the 144-page legislation improves. A lot is at stake.

The 2012 decline also hit government, where budgetary and labor reforms in places like Wisconsin and Tennessee have taken hold. The inimitable Mike Antonucci, writing at the Education Intelligence Agency, picked apart the numbers to unravel 10 interesting observations, including this pair of gems:

9) If the trends recorded since 2000 continue, by 2051 there will be 8 million union members in the United States – 6.6% of the total workforce – and they will all work for the government.

10) Five million of them will be teachers.

Of course, that assumes the likes of the National Education Association will overcome the most recent short-term numbers that suggest their national membership has slipped a bit. To some extent, Colorado mirrors the national trend.

While Colorado teachers are blessed with the freedom to decide whether to join or to pay fees to a union, in many of the larger districts the option to exit the union is limited by various revocation (opt-out) periods. In some cases, it’s easier to get out of a cell phone contract than to get out of the union. Show up at the union office during a two-week window at the busiest time of the school year and fill out the forms, maybe even get an interrogation.

Last year the legislature considered House Bill 1333, which would have afforded all teachers the opportunity to get in or out of a union membership payroll deduction with 30 days notice. (CEA union lobbyists testified against the proposal, all based on the feeble argument that the legislation violated “local control.”)

Well, two very similar proposals have been introduced under the Golden Dome this year, both by freshman legislators: Senate Bill 17 and Senate Bill 141. Insofar as either one restores this option to teachers, without imposing a requirement that school districts serve as collection agents for organized labor, they represent a worthy step forward on behalf of free association.

If Colorado and other states were to adopt such a policy, one must wonder what it would mean for Antonucci’s prediction of future trends. To serve an empowered generation of younger teachers and maintain its membership rolls, just how much would organizations like CEA have to adapt themselves? Given the composition of political power, we may not begin to find an answer this legislative session. But the long-term trends are hard to deny.

Jeffco school board member Paula Noonan was arrested during a traffic stop Jan. 8 when Denver police officers became aware of an outstanding warrant from a 2011 traffic ticket.

Noonan’s arrest was not the first occasion during the term of the school board’s First Vice President in which she has drawn media scrutiny for irresponsible behavior. Local TV news covered her controversial 2010 Dakota Ridge High School commencement speech, with one parent describing it as “a rambling, self-absorbed discourse that confused and embarrassed graduates and their families.”

While fighting back tears, Noonan then told 9 News reporter Kyle Clark: “High school is a great place to learn humility. And I guess that’s what I’m learning.”

Two-and-a-half years later she issued a statement that painfully dredged up echoes of the commencement “train wreck” speech,” as sitting on the dais she delivered her statement to the remaining crowd at the January 17 school board meeting.

“True confessions involves serious reflection on one’s personal imperfections and decisions, and acts of commission and omission — to use technical terms,” Noonan prefaced the admission of her most recent public failing. “I also learned that a true confession brings forgiveness and grace, and I guess I’m going to find out if that is correct or not.”

The response of Board president Leslie Dahlkemper demonstrated precisely the sort of willingness to move on and let bygones be bygones. Whether the parents, taxpayers, and other citizens of Jefferson County wish to return her to a position of responsibility over the Jeffco school district’s $930 million budget is a matter that remains very much in doubt.

“I don’t know. How bad was it?”

“The fiscal cliff deal was so bad that Michael Bennet couldn’t even vote for it.”

The serious question, though, that follows Congress’ pathetic kicking-the-can-down-the-road exercise — which strangely divided Colorado’s Democratic tag-team duo in the U.S. Senate — is whether Colorado Senator Michael Bennet‘s dissent may have set the stage for Republicans to start taking a necessary hard line on the next tough issue around the bend. And to win back some respect from freedom fighters on the Right.

I certainly wasn’t the only one shocked to read on New Year’s Day that Senator Bennet was one of the 8 no votes in the upper house on the fiscal cliff resolution and his stated reason for doing so. Nor am I smart enough to see what sort of practical partisan agenda might have motivated the new chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to make such a renegade and contrarian gesture with this statement:

Washington once again has lived up to its reputation as the “Land of Flickering Lights.” For four years in my townhall meetings across the state Coloradans have told me they want a plan that materially reduces the deficit. This proposal does not meet that standard and does not put in place a real process to reduce the debt down the road.

Bennet’s stated reasons for opposing the fiscal cliff deal — not to mention his first name — set him apart from the two other Senate Democrats who voted No: Iowa’s Tom Harkin and Delaware’s Tom Carper. [For those wondering, Bennet explained the "Land of Flickering Lights" metaphor in a February 2012 interview with the Washington Post's Dana Milbank.]

In a December 7 video interview, Bennet told the Wall Street Journal‘s Gerald Seib about his bipartisan work with Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander to find a middle ground. Bennet expressed a belief that the GOP would budget on raising marginal tax rates on wealthier brackets while also indicating that Democrats are open to real entitlement reform. Of course, the deal that came down over the New Year holiday gave the President most of what he wanted on taxes while actually adding $4 trillion in new deficits.

Just before the 5-minute mark of the video, Bennet made a telling assertion about the early negotiations then underway between President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner. “The details of that deal are much less important than their coming to a real deal,” he said. “And if they come to a real deal, we should support it.”

The junior senator then added with a whimsical expression: “Unless it takes Colorado out of the union, I will support a deal that the Speaker and the President reach, because it’s that important to our economy.”

For the record, there have been no reports that Congress may have inadvertently booted out the Centennial State. I’m not even aware of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid having taken any anonymous phone calls that might substantiate such a rumor. By this time, most Senators actually have had a chance to read what they voted on, so I think we’re safe from that particular uncertainty.

When he voted No in the wee hours of January 1, 2013, Bennet knew it was one that could easily be thrown away. Was it just a matter of affording a politician facing re-election in 2016 the opportunity to have it both ways? The markets and the economy have been spared in the short term, while he gets to wear the white hat trying to take a stand for long-term fiscal sanity. (How else could Bennet get away with moving to the right of his Republican negotiating partner Lamar Alexander on the debt issue?)

Meanwhile, his vote has caused a bit of discomfort among the Lefty Netroots — though we all know they’ll come to the Democratic camp when push comes to shove. But what about 2014: I mean, how effectively did Bennet’s vote triangulate his senior Democratic colleague Mark Udall, who has to face the voters in a mere 22 months?

All that comprises some interesting electoral speculation about events surely to be shaped by the next “crisis” approaching Congress. As the House and Senate stare down the debt ceiling again in a couple months, will the DSCC chairman of all people have provided the platform on which conservatives can take a stand? Unwittingly or no, will Bennet’s unorthodox decision help give Republicans enough backbone to let Obama take us over the debt cliff, if need be, in order to win a substantive deal with real entitlement and long-term spending reform?

Hey, we conservatives need something besides bland humor to hang our hat on these days. Because if the GOP rolls over and plays dead between now and March, it will transcend mere elections. The trouble facing my kids and the whole next generation of Americans would be too painful to contemplate.

Ranking the top 50 on the other hand — beyond a few that consistently rise to the top — was a difficult task. Still, there’s a kind of double-edged fun to assembling a list like this one: 1) Comparing and debating the rankings with friends; and 2) The fluid nature of the list, in part because of new songs discovered that upset the balance. If I do this again, the 2013 edition might look somewhat different.

Some of the songs you see below contain video links, either because the song may be less familiar or because it’s a rendition I particularly like. So without further ado, here in descending order is the current list of my 50 favorite Christmas songs:

1. O Holy Night / Cantique de Noel: Whether in English or the original French, the transcendent melody and text, along with the worshipful response it evokes, cannot be topped–especially in the hands of a gifted and dramatic tenor voice.
2. Hallelujah Chorus, from Messiah: Not strictly speaking a Christmas song, but frankly, I don’t care. Perform this majestic piece any time of year with an able choir and orchestra, and I’m happy with the glimpse of heaven it provides.
3. Hark the Herald Angels Sing: This song may suffer from over-familiarity. Stop and give the words a close look/listen. No other Christmas carol packs such theological significance into every meaningful, spirit-lifting phrase.
4. O Little Town of Bethlehem: I admit this song has quietly ascended my personal list over the years, especially after reading this 2005 Cal Thomas column. No other song so poignantly calls us back to the core Truth of Christmas amid the commercial bustle and din that threatens to drown it out.
5. Gesu Bambino: A beautiful setting that softly summons us to come and “adore Him, Christ the Lord.”
6. Silent Night, Holy Night / Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht: If you had to take one song and say, “this is Christmas,” you go no further than this Franz Gruber classic. It simply must be in the Top 10.
7. Carol of the Bells: A modern iconic piece that is enjoyable to listen to in many variations.
8. Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas: What can I say? It speaks to my sentimental side, makes me think of friends and loved ones of Christmases past. (Original Judy Garland lyrics, please.)
9. Coventry Carol: A haunting, unforgettable melody that sets the Nativity scene as beautifully as any written.
10. Glory to God, from Messiah: Led in by the soprano, you almost can close your eyes and envision the chorus of angels awing the shepherds that ancient sacred night. After several years of attending the Boulder Messiah Singalong, I am now thoroughly convinced that the piece should be taken at a slower, more regal tempo than it is typically treated.
11. O Come, O Come Emmanuel: No quibbling about Advent vs. Christmas songs. It all fits here… It’s my list, after all. Only slightly less haunting and beautiful than #9.
12. Lo, How a Rose E’er Blooming: Appealing textual imagery that fits an equally appealing melody.
13. Mary’s Little Boy Child: A relatively modern piece with a distinctive Caribbean sound that lifts my spirits whether delivered slow and solemn or fast and carefree.
14. I Wonder as I Wander: Yes, I’m a sucker for the haunting Christmas melodies. This one gives good reason to be truly reflective about the Yuletide’s true meaning.
15. And the Glory of the Lord, from Messiah: Yes, I’m also a sucker for the Messiah. When listening to the entire oratorio, this early piece almost always sets the tone for me, nearly as reverential as #2.
16. O Come, All Ye Faithful / Adeste Fideles: Rightly recognizable as a song that declares “this is Christmas,” closely behind #6.
17. I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day: A Civil War era song that climbs the list because of its triumphant final verse, “Then pealed the bells more loud and deep, God is not dead nor doth he sleep….
18. Sleigh Ride: The answer to “Boston Pops plus Christmas equals?” Sit back and enjoy a 1948 piece that has aged into a seasonal classic.
19. In the Bleak Midwinter: Some of my friendly critics believe it should rank higher. Maybe next year it will.
20. Sweet Little Jesus Boy: Definitely the best Christmas piece from the Negro spiritual genre, one that humbly captures the lasting significance of the Incarnation.
21. Joy Has Dawned Upon the World: A contemporary Christmas classic, penned by our generation’s greatest hymn-writing duo — Keith Getty and Stuart Townend. It’s good to become familiar with this song and the powerful message it packs.
22. Still, Still, Still: Bring out the boys choir, the original German text, and take in the peaceful essence of the season.
23. Do You Hear What I Hear?: An explicit cry for peace, this song just celebrated its 50th anniversary. I have to say it’s grown on me in the past few years to make its way onto this list.
24. Good Christian Men, Rejoice: Perpetually high on the Christmas choral repertoire.
25. The Christmas Song: “Jack Frost nipping at your nose….” You just can’t go wrong with so many good versions of this sentimental classic and its evocative imagery.
26. Joy to the World: Overdone, but still very good.
27. Christmas Time is Here, from A Charlie Brown Christmas: As an adult, it makes me feel like a kid again around Christmas, even if for a brief few moments.
28. Hear the Lamb a Cryin’: A penetrating and contemplative song that brings to life the humility embodied in the Incarnation.
29. White Christmas: It was written by the Jewish-American Irving Berlin, but the song belongs to Bing Crosby.
30. Angels We Have Heard on High: Gloria In Excelsis Deo… every Christmas needs this song.
31. Mary Had a Baby: The soprano section makes or breaks this African-American Christmas classic.
32. Away in a Manger: Either of the well-known versions will do, but I prefer the Kilpatrick tune. With young children in the house, singing in church Christmas programs, I simply must have a soft spot inside for this one.
33. Go, Tell it on the Mountain: Another relative newcomer to the list. If it doesn’t have a booming bass voice belting out the verses, then it drops precipitously.
34. Celtic Advent Carol: Maybe the least well known piece on the list, you may have a hard time getting this recent song out of your head, after listening to it a couple times.
35. I’ll Be Home for Christmas: Another bow to the sentimental.
36. O Thou That Tellest Good Tidings to Zion, from Messiah: “Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!”
37. Linus and Lucy, from A Charlie Brown Christmas: No words needed. This time of year my kids request me to play this piece on the piano more than any other. It’s fun, and you can’t resist the urge to dance like a “Peanuts” character.
38. The Birthday of a King: A refreshing piece that I think is not sufficiently appreciated.
39. Ding, Dong, Merrily on High: “Hosanna In Excelsis”
40. Jingle Bells: A gratuitous addition, perhaps, but there are only a couple of versions that I truly enjoy (including the one linked — there’s something about Nataly’s voice).
41. The People That Walked in Darkness, from Messiah: Rare is the piece made for the skillful bass to go to town, and for the listener to enjoy, AND set to Scripture.
42. Home for the Holidays: A piece that would rise and fall on the list based on my level of sentimentality, though it falls below #25 and #35 for reasons that I cannot quite articulate.
43. Breath of Heaven (Mary’s Song): A contemporary piece that humanizes the Christmas story like almost none other. In my estimation, much better than “Mary, Did You Know?”
44. Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring: Like #2, it’s strictly speaking not a Christmas song. And the melody is often overplayed. But it had to go on the list somewhere.
45. Bring the Torch, Jeanette Isabella / Un flambeau, Jeannette Isabella: I suppose this song might be higher on the list if the lyrical context were more easily grasped.
46. God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen: I’ve slowly come to appreciate the irony of this song’s rich, joyful message harbored in a minor key.
47. Of the Father’s Love Begotten: Fit for a male a capella choir, this piece solemnly and neatly fits the Holy Birth into the larger scope of the eternal Christ, an incomprehensible mystery.
48. For Unto Us a Child is Born, from Messiah: “The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”
49. The Sussex Carol (On Christmas Night): I have a feeling this song will ascend the list in 2013.
50. Angels, From the Realms of Glory: The least appreciated of the common angel-themed carols, it nonetheless carries a sturdy message and a catchy tune.

Honorable Mention: Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus; Here We Come a Wassailing; How Great Our Joy; It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas; Love Came Down at Christmas; On This Still and Silent Night; Once in Royal David’s City; Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town; What Child is This?

What am I missing? Where did I go wrong? Hopefully this list helps to expand your Yuletide musical horizons a bit, and we’ll see what 2013 brings. Until then, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Rumors persist that the American Federation of Teachers wants to inflict legislative revenge on the bold Douglas County school board. In exchange for having their monopoly bargaining status and political dues collection revoked, they apparently are tempted to advance a bill that would impose some sort of bargaining requirement on local school boards. To succumb to the temptation would place their Colorado Education Association (CEA) union counterparts in a bind: How would they look having so stridently defended the principle of local control in the recent past?

The frequent and widespread invocation of “local control” under the Golden Dome has grown into a running gag among education lobbyists and committees. Article IX, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution grants local school boards “control of instruction of the public schools of their respective districts.” But the clause often grows larger than life, with advocates either clinging to or resisting the argument based on the bill before them.

Don’t like a particular legislative mandate? Stand on the bulwark of “local control,” like union attorneys successfully argued in Colorado courts to strike down the state’s 2003 pilot voucher program. Don’t mind the next mandate so much? Let it slide. There are a few consistent defenders of local control, but they tend to be the exception.

Sometimes, though, the “local control” argument is a desperate crutch to cling to when no other reasonable justifications are to be found. Several cases in point involve issues surrounding school district collective bargaining agreements. The CEA has dismissed proposed laws that would infringe on union-negotiated privileges as violations of local control.

The ability to require non-union members to opt out of paying union “dues equivalency” every year during a narrow window of time? The obligation for taxpayers to underwrite the salaries of union officers released from classroom duties? The concerted effort to conduct union collective bargaining negotiations — and all the relevant policies and budget items they entail — behind closed doors? Hey, those are “local control” decisions.

In 2012 the argument poked its laughable ahead above water several times during the debate over one particular piece of legislation considered by the General Assembly. House Bill 1333 merely would have said any teacher who wants to leave a union or other membership organization can do so at any time with 30 days notice. Twice a CEA lobbyist testified against the legislation on the basis that such a requirement would violate local control.

In the 1830s, for the cause of promoting individualism, Emerson disparaged “foolish consistency.” Looking ahead to 2013, CEA has to weigh whether it would support any legislation requiring school boards to engage in bargaining. The funny thing is a decision to do so would banish its own hobgoblins of consistency, but in service of the collective.

When a Republican politician speaks competently, compassionately and courageously about real education reform, my ears perk up. When that politician happens to be hailed as one of the GOP’s top contenders for the national ticket in 2016, I also smile optimistically.

Rubio framed the education message in his D.C. award acceptance speech around the goal of opening wide the doors to America’s middle class. A linchpin is his bold proposal to expand educational choice at the federal level in a way that has not really been pursued before:

Third, our tax code should reward investment in education. If you invest in a business by buying a machine, you get a tax credit for the cost. If there is a tax credit for investing in equipment, shouldn’t there be a tax credit for investing in people?

Let’s provide tax encouragement to help parents pay for the school of their choice. Lets create a corporate federal tax credit to a qualifying, non-profit 501(c)(3) Education Scholarship Organization, so that students from low income families can receive a scholarship to pay for the cost of a private education of their parents choosing.

It’s not completely surprising that Rubio should make this argument. During his first elected term in the state legislature, Florida became one of the first states to adopt such a program. Today more than 35,000 low-income Sunshine State students receive an average scholarship of nearly $4,000 to cover private school tuition. Contributions to scholarship organizations provide businesses a dollar-to-dollar credit on their state corporate tax bill.

The benefits of choice and competition fostered by Florida’s 10-year-old scholarship tax credit program have been well documented. Students who receive the scholarship to attend private school demonstrate “modest but statistically significant [test score] gains,” while public schools have tended to show more improvement when private schools taking scholarship students are nearer, more plentiful, and more diverse. Not to mention the fact the program has helped to save the State of Florida money and boosted parental satisfaction.

So when is a similar-style scholarship tax credit program coming to Colorado? Wish I could say it will be soon. Democrats who rule the roost have shown very little or no interest. In recent years, various bills have been proposed (and killed) that would have expanded school choice through the tax code. The closest version to registering any sort of success was House Bill 1048, sponsored by Rep. Spencer Swalm in 2011. Even with Republicans then in charge of one chamber, they couldn’t even get it onto the floor for a vote.

I don’t take it as a call to give up, but as a summons to rethink the structure and mechanism to answer some common objections. And get out there and diffuse the mythology that underlies the remaining opposition.

Senator Rubio’s vision provides just the sort of platform to get the idea moving again in Colorado.

Some of Wisconsin’s early 2011 scenes played out yesterday at the State Capitol, as protestors thronged and chanted favorites like, “A people united will never be defeated!” and “Hey hey, ho ho, Right-to-Work has got to go!”

News outlets report that Michigan State Police arrested eight people trying to break into legislative chambers as the state senate gave preliminary approval to send the workplace freedom measure on to supportive Governor Rick Snyder. (When similar legislation is introduced here in Colorado in 2013, the reaction almost certainly will be much more quiet… and lethal.)

As the legislative process unfolds in Lansing at a rapid pace, Left-leaning media organs like Think Progress repeat one of Big Labor’s favorite anti-Right-to-Work talking points, descriptively suggesting the measure “effectively undermines union activities by allowing non-union workers to free-ride on union-negotiated contracts.”

The same argument emerged during Colorado’s 2008 debate over a Right-to-Work ballot initiative. United Food and Commercial Workers spokesman Manny Gonzalez was quoted saying Amendment 47 “basically creates a freeloader system, so that people can opt out of union membership, but they still can benefit from the same union services that members can.” Denver Post columnist Al Lewis cleverly rechristened the issue “Right to Shirk.”

Unfortunately, it’s a case of labor leaders protesting too much. Because federal labor law guarantees exclusive representation status, and union leaders lobbied to make it that way. Exclusive representation means once a workplace has been unionized, everyone in the unit is represented by the collectively bargained contract — whether they find it to be in their best interest or not.

Yet what if individual workers could decide not only whether to subsidize the union treasury, but also whether the union contract dictated their terms of employment at all? If the bargaining service union leaders provide is universally beneficial to employees, so much so that passing Right-to-Work creates a bunch of ungrateful “freeloaders,” why must they be compelled to accept the terms of the contract in order to keep working?

Having instead a system of “free agency” likely would see many workers stick securely with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. However, if the service is ineffective, others might band together to negotiate through another agency or even go it alone, based on individual performance. This unorthodox but pro-freedom approach has been tried in New Zealand, as explained in a 2010 report to which I contributed.

Three cheers for Michigan lawmakers: Right-to-Work is certainly a step in the right direction. Yet while also promoting freedom of association and individual rights, a policy of worker free agency would go even further in relieving labor leaders of the “freeloader” burden about which they are wont to complain.

The possible push in the state Legislature’s lame-duck session has already sparked a battle, as a coalition of about 300 AFL-CIO members as well as a contingent from the state police descended on the Statehouse in Lansing on Thursday to lobby lawmakers against a measure they fear could dramatically limit their influence.

Big Labor is trying to nip the effort to empower non-union workers in the bud, organizing vocal pressure before a bill even has been introduced. Before the recent elections, there was no imminent sign of workplace freedom moving forward.

As the Detroit Free Press notes, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder “has repeatedly said right-to-work is not on his agenda.” But union-backed Proposition 2, a failed statewide initiative that sought to enshrine collective bargaining guarantees in the state constitution, clearly antagonized a reluctant Snyder.

The dynamic somewhat resembles what unfolded in Colorado five years ago. Except it was a pro-labor action by a governor — Bill Ritter’s November 2007 executive order laying out the union red carpet to state government — that led to the business-backed Amendment 47 Right-to-Work ballot initiative the following year. Along with two other initiatives threatening union power, Amendment 47 went down to flaming defeat under a multi-million dollar Big Labor barrage.

Colorado’s Labor Peace Act long has provided a unique middle legal ground between the 22 Right-to-Work states (where employees cannot be coerced into paying union dues or fees) and 27 forced-unionism states where a single workplace vote can compel “agency fee” tribute from non-union members. In Colorado, a second separate workplace vote, by a supermajority of eligible employees, is needed before non-members can be forced to pay agency fees. (Colorado teachers, however, have right-to-work protections.)

Apart from Amendment 47, there have been several attempts in recent years to enact Right-to-Work and upset the Labor Peace Act. Republican lawmakers have introduced the proposal on more than one occasion. With the Democrats now in control of both Colorado legislative chambers, no one seriously expects the idea to gain traction here in the next couple years.

But what about Michigan?

Enacting Right-to-Work in the birthplace of the United Auto Workers (UAW) wouldn’t quite have the same symbolic impact as Scott Walker’s reforms in the first state to empower government unions. Nor would one expect it to create the same level of intense hysterics. But its significance for the national worker freedom movement would be difficult to overestimate.

Just probably not anytime soon in Colorado. As a Michigan native transplanted to the Centennial State, I never would have thought it might unfold this way. If union leaders succeed in pushing back the unfolding legislative effort, though, neither state would be likely to see a change any time soon.

Modest cuts to lavish benefits for government employees, along with some of the accompanying tools approved in Walker’s controversial Budget Repair Bill, put the Badger State back on a healthy fiscal setting and brought compensation more back in line with private sector workers.

But a new video from the Association of American Educators reminds us that the Wisconsin reforms also promoted professionalism and individual empowerment for teachers. Walker’s state left the ranks of those where union monopoly power feeds off teacher tribute payments.

While a national survey ranked Colorado teachers unions number one nationally in their status giving politically to state candidates, they are generally weaker in that they lack the across-the-board power to compel support, a power their Wisconsin counterparts once had. No state law requires Colorado teachers to join or pay dues to a union (and they have a growing number of membership options).

Nonetheless, local unions still can make it hard for members to get out. And their state lobbying arm recently beat back a legislative attempt to give teachers more flexibility and freedom.

Though bruised and bloodied in Wisconsin and a few other places, union leaders have shown no inclination to “go gentle into that good night.” Nationally they had some Election Day success with the defeats of key ballot initiatives in Idaho and of a strong education reform leader in Indiana.

Closer to home, teachers union leaders do not want to lose the power grip they have attained in Colorado. Leaders in school districts have watched with varying degrees of interest as Douglas County school board — representing the state’s third-largest district — this year ended up cutting ties with union monopoly power. At least as important, in September they established policy ending the district’s role of using taxpayer resources to collect funds for the union political machine. Next up, perhaps, will be more options for teachers.

The comparison of Dougco to Wisconsin was made last summer, as the union negotiations heated up and broke down. The comparison is bound to return in 2013 as the American Federation of Teachers and its allies aim their political cannons south of Denver in a pivotal school board campaign. It’s past time for the education reform team — those who want to expand parental choice and teacher professionalism — to wake up and get engaged.

A year from now, either reformers will celebrate Wisconsin-like success as Dougco’s cutting-edge, parent-friendly and performance-based innovation will be vindicated and begin taking hold beyond its boundaries. Or union resurgence will shut down a major path to positive change in Colorado education.

For so many, though, it comes at the beginning of the school year as classrooms are being decorated, lesson plans developed, routines established, and so much more. But September 15 passes before you can get down to the local union office — say, in Jeffco, Commerce City, Englewood, Longmont, or Canon City — and you have to wait another 350 days to stop the automatic union dues deduction. That’s about what happened to Denver Public Schools teacher Ronda Reinhardt, who finally was able to take advantage of the two-week November opt-out window after waiting nearly a full year.

But what about the teacher who wants to stick with the $750 or more in NEA/CEA dues per year but maybe doesn’t like the union’s sometimes unseemly political spending habits? Getting the $39, or even $63 (in some locations), back from the Every Member Option means submitting the request just before the Christmas er, winter break at the December 15 deadline.

So school district employers automatically funnel the EMO along with all the union dues from a teacher’s paycheck. There’s no separate line item on the pay stub for the employee to see. The bimonthly CEA Journal posts a couple notices a year, but most member teachers I’ve talked to say it gets little read. Even teachers generally accustomed to asking for the refund year after year appreciate the postcard or email message reminders the Independence Institute sends across Colorado.

But otherwise, how effectively do union leaders notify their members about the EMO? A little-known fact is that it depends on which district, or even school, in which you work. Some do a fairly good job, but far from all. Based on the pattern of inquiries I have received over the years, I can say that teachers in Denver and Jeffco are most likely to find the EMO refund — or the fact there are actually two EMO refunds they can request — to be a revelation.

If a new teacher union member heard that some dues money went to politics and wanted to find out more, would she find the correct answer by contacting the local union office? The Independence Institute sought an answer by requesting a couple volunteers to make some phone calls. While a majority of the local union offices provided more-or-less accurate information, we definitely discovered some room for improvement. As I wrote last month on Colorado Peak Politics:

No doubt the CEA and its local affiliates have made some improvements in their efforts to disclose the availability of member political refunds. A good start would be making sure all receptionists are prepared with a fact sheet at their disposal. Or maybe they all should just bookmark their Web browsers to the Independent Teachers website.

While some teachers are glad to fork over the funds for the union’s political agenda, there are still plenty of others oblivious during the holiday bustle. Once December 15 is past, the money is gone. If they want to spend the money on their own political candidates and causes, give to charity, or do a little extra Christmas shopping, well, they’re out of luck — at least until next year.

Improving customer service would only help the handful of teachers who are aware and assertive enough to reach out and learn more. The best improvement the union could make is ask educators each year to opt in to the political program. That would truly give Every Member (an) Option.

On Friday evening my wife and I took in Lincoln at the local multiplex. The usher at Arvada’s Olde Town Stadium Theatre entered the nearly packed auditorium and gave some introductory remarks about the movie’s production and casting. The movie, already a long time in director Steven Spielberg‘s conception, delayed an extra year to give lead actor Daniel Day-Lewis time to research and immerse himself in authentic historic character.

To great effect, the director patiently agreed. Day-Lewis’ performance as the 16th President is not only masterful, but Oscar-worthy. Taking the marble off the man, he eschewed the Hollywood shortcuts for a historically accurate voice (more shrill and tinny than booming and baritone). Lincoln emanates through the screen. Lincoln the father struggles to be attentive, often including his young Tad in important meetings. Lincoln the lawyer (“a sturdy profession”) recollects stories that drive home important principles and strategies, or breaks up the tension with one especially memorable account.

More so, however, Lincoln the statesman shines through. Day-Lewis on screen wrestles with some of the overwhelming challenges that the historical record shows clearly burdened the 16th President. Whether in frank conversations with his assembled Cabinet or just his confidante and Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn), or even in an imagined exchange with the First Lady’s modiste and ex-slave Elizabeth Keckley (Gloria Reuben), his instinctive disdain for slavery and adherence to the Declaration of Independence’s principles shine forth alongside his understanding of the dangers of advancing policies without popular consent.

Understandably, the political Lincoln takes the lead (a fact which should at least attract the attention of my former masters adviser and Pulitzer-winning historian Mark Neely). A longtime Illinois Whig and Republican political hand and former elected representative, he demonstrated a keen understanding of the sausage-making process. The movie’s story line — significantly based on Doris Kearns Goodwin‘s substantial tome Team of Rivals — revolves around the feverish effort to get the House of Representatives to formally propose the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in the United States. Almost as memorable a performance comes from Tommy Lee Jones as cantankerous Radical Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens.

So is the movie historically accurate? As historian and movie consultant Harold Holzer highlights, plenty of the small details fail the test (no, I didn’t catch them all myself, though I did catch one Holzer doesn’t list: the anachronistic use of the word bipartisan). But Spielberg successfully depicted most of the important characters (Sally Fields‘ Mary Todd Lincoln received too sympathetic a treatment in my estimation) and pieces of the timeline, as well as the war-weary spirit of early 1865.

My biggest complaint regards an omission, and an unsurprising one at that. Spielberg’s team fell prey to the same oversight that plagues many academics who are secular fellow travelers. As George Rable pointed out in his fresh and thorough Civil religious history God’s Almost Chosen Peoples:

…the absence of virtually any reference to religious forces in the standard Civil War narratives is remarkable. That in itself would have struck those in the Civil War generation as very odd because many of them believed that the origin, course, and outcome of the war all reflected God’s will.

The exception? The excerpt of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address that serves as the movie’s capstone. But Lincoln is primarily a political tale, and the man at the story’s center did not adhere to organized religion. So the general defect is a minor one that detracts but little from the film.

I don’t get out to the movies often. But when I do, I really like it to be a worthwhile experience. Spielberg’s Lincoln fits the bill. Hopefully, viewing the movie inspires more non-geeks to read into the life and times of America’s 16th President, his principles and achievements. There’s no shortage of good essential literature with which to start. (4 stars out of 5)

Say what you will, but at least the Obama team didn’t tell America that Big Bird was, say, green. For that they might have had to hire the staff of Colorado junior U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. This morning Bennet’s office sent out a fundraising appeal for Congressional candidate Sal Pace. The email message (with the subject line “Grover”) began, well, like this:

It reads: “No I’m not talking about Grover, the furry purple puppet from Sesame Street….” [emphasis mine]

Grover… PURPLE?? Maybe I’ve spent too much time with my young children in recent years, but it took me approximately one-tenth of a second to detect the faux pas. If nothing else, you’d think someone could have recalled the classic Sesame Street musical revue that gives the answer, “Fuzzy and Blue”:

A quick Google search could have cleared up Grover’s fur color. Or someone on Bennet’s staff could have consulted with a random focus group of preschoolers to identify popular PBS characters. (What’s next: “Elmo, the annoying, high-pitched orange fuzzy monster”?) Hey, even a phone call to the 4-year-old in my house would have cleared up the chromatic confusion.

But they didn’t try any of those simple strategies. So instead, it just looks like Democratic leaders in Washington, D.C., really don’t care about the Sesame Street they have desperately demagogued to create a phony and flat campaign issue.

But there just might be a silver lining to the story. So many Democrats who are obsessed with race and skin color, often eager to fill quotas for a wide range of purposes to create a surface view of “diversity.” Considering that, this little anecdote might suggest the Left might be joining the effort to create a truly colorblind society.

Perhaps Bennet could clarify his position on affirmative action.

Grover… Fuzzy and PURPLE?!?

(Overheard at Bennet’s headquarters: “Hey, is Bert the short pudgy one or the tall one?…”)

Let’s start with the obvious. For those who haven’t had the opportunity to drive by our Arvada yard full of signs, here are most of the candidates we’re supporting in 2012:

For those who have questions about state and local ballot issues, as well as nonpartisan candidates and offices, check out my guide to the Colorado ballot 2012.

I’ll tackle predictions of the Presidential and Congressional races later on. For now I will offer up my humble prognostications for the Colorado state house and state senate. I have had neither the time nor the inclination to create the in-depth legislative election analysis that I put forward in 2010.

But I have done some footwork this time around. Good sources cited include takes on 2012′s top races to watch from both the Colorado Statesman and Ed News Colorado. Also helpful are data on the new legislative districts after reapportionment and candidate campaign finance reports.

Without further ado, here are my thoughts:

First, the 65-seat State House, which the Republicans oh-so-narrowly eked away from the Democrats in a weird 2010 in Colorado — missing the national Tea Party wave because of a top-of-the-ticket disaster. They bring the 33-32 edge into the 2012 showdown, but redistricting has shaken up the map and the possibilities. Fewer incumbents are in the mix. No matter what happens, there will be a lot of new faces in the legislature. But will the GOP’s Frank McNulty keep the Speaker’s gavel, or will a Democrat — probably Mark Ferrandino — wrest it away?

Likely Democrat Gains (2): HD 30 – Jenise May over Mike Sheely; HD 40 – John Buckner over Rep. Cindy Acree;

Likely Republican Gains (2): HD 56 – Rep. Kevin Priola over Dave Rose; HD 64 – Tim Dore

Probable Democrat Gains (4): HD 17 – Thomas Exum over Rep. Mark Barker; HD 28 – Brittany Pettersen over Amy Atwood; HD 29 – Rep. Robert Ramirez (R) vs. Tracy Kraft-Tharp (D); HD 33 – former Rep. Dianne Primavera over Dave Pigott

Probable Republican Gains (2): HD 3 – Brian Watson over Rep. Daniel Kagan; HD 18 – Jennifer George over Rep. Pete Lee

Tossup – Possible Republican Gain: HD 50 – Art Carlson over Rep. Dave Young

Possible Dem Upset to Watch: HD 59 – Mike McLachlan over Rep. J. Paul Brown

Possible GOP Upset to Watch: HD 35 – Brian Vande Krol over Rep. Cherylin Peniston

New Legislators to Watch: I’m probably partial, but on the Republican side HD 22′s Justin Everett figures to be a strong, articulate conservative voice within the caucus for awhile. I don’t know enough about the crop of new Democratic candidates to make an informed assessment.

Analysis: It certainly looks like the battle for the state house will come down to the wire again. While it could go either way by narrow margins, my prediction today is that Republicans will hold onto the chamber by the same narrow margin, 33-32.

Finally, on to the State Senate, where there is a much more manageable number (20) of races in the 35-seat chamber. In 2010 the Democrats held on to a 20-15 majority by winning three close (including two extremely close) races. This time they are defending 13 seats to the GOP’s 7, and almost certainly neither side will have as many as 20 seats when the dust settles. Can the Republicans retake the state senate, though? It all comes down to Jefferson County, aka Swing County, USA.

Probable Republican Gains (2): SD 26 – Dave Kerber over Sen. Linda Newell; SD 35 – Larry Crowder over Crestina Martinez

Tossup – Possible Democrat Gain: SD 22 – Rep. Andy Kerr over Rep. Ken Summers

Tossup – Possible Republican Gain: SD 19 – Lang Sias over Sen. Evie Hudak (Yes, this is my district, for the astute observers who spotted a certain name on one of the signs in the picture above)

New Legislators to Watch: Owen Hill in SD 10 is a lock to win after falling short by a razor-thin margin against Senate Majority Leader John Morse (SD 11) in 2010. His counterpart from the Left, the ACLU’s Jessie Ulibarri (SD 21), likewise figures to be a rising star in his party.

Analysis: The GOP is virtually certain to gain ground in the state senate, but the odds are still less than 50-50 that they can seize the majority. Winning both seats in Jeffco would require a bigger Republican wave than seems evident right now. My prediction is a 2-seat Republican gain to narrow the Democrats’ advantage to 18-17.

And that was before a pair of devastating ads dropped this week on the incumbent. The first came directly from the Coors campaign, truthfully exposing a pair of disturbing Perlmutter legislative votes, including opposing a bill “that would have allowed children to testify via closed-circuit television when testifying against their abusers” despite knowing it was constitutional:

The second video comes in the form of biting, laugh-out-loud satire from the brilliant gang at Revealing Politics:

“He’s a guy… He does stuff.” Indeed. Stuff like offering up lame, disprovable excuses for casting votes in favor of the rights of rapists and child abusers over their victims. That one-two punch will leave a mark. But enough of a mark to help the challenger pull off the upset? Time will tell.

Maybe it’s time for the Perlmutter campaign to create another commercial with the candidate spontaneously meeting a random voter — er, campaign worker.