Hartford Courant from Hartford, Connecticut • A11

ANDREW S. JULIEN, PUBLISHER EDITOR-IN-CHIEF ajuliencourant.com THE HARTFORD COURANT FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 2016 ATI OPINION CAROLYN LUMSDEN, OPINION EDITOR clumsdencourant.com SHOULD SMD IN VfNJ(Vff 10 LETTERS EDITORIAL Civic Shoplifting As Tax Day approaches (this year it's Monday, April 18), the good news is that 86 percent of Americans believe it is "not at all acceptable" to cheat on their taxes, according to an IRS Oversight Board survey. The bad news is that one in nine taxpayers insist it's perfectly OK to fudge their returns. The worse news is that a third or more actually do cheat, either by underreporting their incomes or overstating deductions, or both. Clearly, many Americans are willing to do what they profess to be unacceptable.

It is easy, after all, to inflate an expense or to participate in the underground economy. We are not talking nickels and dimes here. Tax evasion is a major contributor to budget deficits each year and to our burgeoning national debt. Take 2006 as an example, when our nation was embroiled in two wars. One would assume that the compliance rate would be higher while our servicemen and women were fighting and dying overseas.

Think again. That year nearly 15 percent of federal taxes owed went unpaid and unrecovered by enforcement action. Americans shortchanged Uncle Sam by $450 billion. The government eventually recovered $65 billion, reducing the shortfall to $385 billion. Still, that figure was higher than the nation's budget deficit that year: $248 billion.

During the decade ending in 2010, unpaid taxes amounted to $3 trillion. That's real money, even inside the Beltway. It could have put Americans to work fixing the nation's crumbling infrastructure, to cite one pressing need. To translate all of this civic shoplifting into personal terms, each federal tax filer in 2010 paid more than $2,000 to compensate for the $305 billion in unpaid taxes. And less money for Uncle Sam means less federal aid as well as lost revenue to states like Connecticut that have an income tax.

So Who Are These Tax Chiselers? A significant percentage of them are business people or self-employed individuals. They finish the job and prefer cold cash to a check or credit card. They may charge less if customers pay with greenbacks. The transaction is completed with a wink and a smile. They've paid their fair share already, at least according to them.

Of course, it would be one thing if these individuals didn't drive the same roads that the rest of us do or if, out of guilt, they refrained from visiting state and national parks or sent their children to private schools. But that's not likely. No, when there's trouble, they dial 911. When they retire, they'll sign up for Social Security and Medicare. And, of course, they expect our armed forces to keep them safe.

What Happened To Enforcement? One obvious solution to this taxing problem is better enforcement although it isn't obvious enough for our representatives in Washington. Since 2010 (when Republicans gained control of the House), Congress has slashed the IRS's budget by 18 percent when adjusted for inflation, reducing its enforcement personnel by 10,000 people. Meanwhile, the agency has acquired more duties to perform, such as implementing the Affordable Care Act and handling an explosion of identity theft cases. The IRS is having trouble answering the phone much less tracking down tax cheats. Barring a solution from on high, a grass-roots response would be for all of us to suck it up and pay our fair share, rather than expect our friends and neighbors to pick up the slack.

If we don't like how the government is spending our money, there are people to call or vote out of office. Disgruntled citizens can organize and even stand for election themselves. Contrary to what one presidential candidate is saying, this is still a great nation and better run than most. So pony up, people. and damaging at worst.

Caryn Joyce Falvey, Gran by The writer, an educational consultant, is a retired principal for the West Hartford Public Schools. SBAC Test Mandate Panned In 2014, the State Board of Education approved several charter schools with little consideration for the funding they would require. At the time, Sen. Beth Bye was quoted by the CT Mirror as saying, "I am sort of outraged that they approved additional charters. Did they also vote on a resolution to fully fund our public schools? No, I don't think so." Once again, the state board is mandating policy without considering the resources and precious tax dollars districts will need for its implementation mandating the use of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium scores in teacher evaluations next year even as evidence continues to grow against such policies.

Recently, the California Alliance of Researchers for Equity in Education released a report signed by more 100 researchers that concluded SBAC assessments "lack validity, reliability, and fairness, and should not be administered, much less be considered a basis for high-stakes decision making." The legislature is currently considering a bill that would decouple Smarter Balanced test results from teacher evaluations. Given the unknown cost and the growing evidence against relying on this testing, the legislature should pass this legislation and use funds for more sensible education policies. James Mulholland, Glastonbury The writer is a teacher in the Hartford Public Schools. Will Co-op Employees Be Losers? The April 6 op-ed "UConn Made Right Call Dropping Co-op," by the UConn student who served on the committee that recommended the change from the co-op to a corporation, lists the stakeholders who were responsible for this decision. One group that is missing from her list is the permanent co-op employees.

This leaves me wondering where the "financial benefit" to the university that the companies vying for the bookstore promise will be coming from. Will the long-term employees of the bookstore be the losers when it comes to their salaries and health care benefits? Helen Ross, Mansfield Laws Making Bathrooms Unsafe For Children So if a pedophile exposes himself to young girls near a school or park or anywhere else, we can have him thrown in jail, but Connecticut and other states have laws saying that a man who identifies as a woman can use the women's locker room or restroom? I now know the world has gone crazy. How do you protect your child when the law says people who claim to identify as members of the opposite sex have rights that trump the safety of your child? If you deny them access to that bathroom, you violate their rights and they sue for discrimination. You can't tell me there is not something inherently wrong with this situation. Leave it to politicians to come up with such bad laws.

Tom Bucior, Rocky Hill Test Unreliable In Teacher Evaluations I am disheartened that The Courant supports linking Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium testing to educator evaluation April 8, editorial, "Better Students come to school with diverse backgrounds. Many live in homes where English is not spoken, where parents struggle to put food on the table, or where parents are absent from their lives. Poor testing performance cannot solely be attributed to the teacher. Can all students ultimately succeed? Absolutely. But they need time and support.

A single snapshot does nothing but provide us with a starting point. We need to see growth over time, and then assess whether all educators involved have been effective. It is unfair to support linking educator evaluation to so-called Smarter Balanced testing when not every grade or every subject is tested. Similarly, it is unfair that a teacher with a class of fragile pre-algebra students should be punished while a teacher of honors math students should be rewarded. The computer-administered SBAC favors students who have access to computers at home and time to practice their keyboarding skills.

Those without home computers are at a disadvantage. Linking meaningful, ongoing student assessment to educator evaluation is appropriate and necessary. Linking educator evaluation to a single test is meaningless at best HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD We also welcome op-eds on public policy issues of up to 700 words. Please e-mail them to oped courant.com. Op-eds must be your original, unpublished work.

We can print only afew of the many we receive. We welcome your letters of up to 200 words. They must be exclusive to us and may be edited. To send a letter, go to the Letters section of our website, www.courant.comletters, and post it in the template. Don't Dismiss It As A Tirst-World Problem' GINA BARRECA gbginabarreca.com intergalactic.) A 32 -year-old pal explained that he invokes "first-world problems" when he wants to ground the conversation by placing things within a larger context.

"If we're whining about something trivial, it'll remind us that we're lucky to have such relatively insignificant issues." His family is not trying to find clean water, for example, but trying to get their hot water heater working again. I respect his intentions, yet I distrust the phrase. It's too often and too thoughtlessly used as a form of presumptive absolution, a way of being simultaneously sanctimonious and patronizing. If it's too trifling to mention, then don't bring it up; if it's important, then accept responsibility for what you feel and what you say. As do so many visceral reactions, mine goes back to childhood.

My family had a version of what I regard as essentially the same sentiment: "THAT should be the worst thing that happens to you!" is what I heard every 15 minutes as a kid. That was my family's collective and unvarying response whenever anybody was hurt, unhappy or weak enough to admit discomfort. You could say you had rickets, and the aunts would chorus, "THAT should be the WORST thing that happens to you!" as if they knew precisely what more grievous disasters lurked just around the corner if you didn't appreciate your own good fortune. If you dared to speak up for yourself, you were shut down by the declaration that you were an ingrate and a brute. If you didn't watch out, fate would smack your head like an old woman with a wooden spoon.

You didn't have a right to feel anything not after what they endured. And they made sure you knew it. Let's just say it didn't lead to a lot of honest examination of deep feelings. Maybe that's why advice columnist Amy D. Dickinson doesn't like the phrase "only first-world problems" either, defining it as "dismissive." As Amy told me, "People of all stripes 'get' to have problems.

As someone who deals with people and their problems for a living, I don't like to characterize some as somehow unworthy of attention." Recently a student came into my office saying, "I chipped my tooth. I guess it's a first-world problem," to which I replied, "I don't think that's right. I bet there are swear words for chipping a tooth in every hellhole around the globe." She was trying to be brave, for which I give her some credit and all, but cracking an incisor is cracking an incisor. Yes, some countries can offer dentistry while others offer a pair of pliers but that's a reaction to the situation and not the individual experience. This teenager needed a cold compress and a warm hug.

As my friend Kate put it, "Offering comfort and empathy is not a finite action that should be hoarded and used sparingly for only the most dire circumstances. A sincere 'there, there' or an embrace is welcome whether you chipped your tooth or a dingo just ate your baby." "I tend to complain to my daughters, maybe just a little," says another friend, Loretta. "One rebuked me with, 'Oh, boo-hoo first-world I told her I agreed with her and then offered to make amends by cutting off her first-world credit card." Aren't we permitted to sympathize and empathize without checking ourselves to make sure we're only being generous in geopolitically appropriate doses? Here's a hug just don't mention first-world problems. Gina Barreca is an English professor at UConn and author of "If You Lean In, Will Men Just Look Down Your Blouse?" and eight other books. She can be reached at ginabarreca.com.

It's easy to put everybody else's pain into perspective. Broken heart? At least it's not a broken leg. Broken leg? At least it's not a broken heart. Evicted? At least you still have your car. Car repossessed? Hey, you'll be so busy trying to figure out public transportation you won't have time to worry about your broken heart.

But it doesn't work that way when it's your own affliction, does it? As my assistant Krissy says, "Who wants to hear, 'Sure, but when you're feeling bad?" That's why I break out in hives when I hear, "Oh, it's only first-world problems." (And don't tell me that my allergic reaction is a first-world problem, either. Irritation is global, intergenerational and probably.