Shawn_Coleman's Blog

    "the people who take a shower before they go to work get bailed out, those who need to take a shower after work get thrown out"

-Leo GerardPresident, United Steelworkers

  Once, many years ago, my good friend Leslie remarked on my style with women, she said "you are like a wolf in sheep's clothing but your costume isn't very good you have fangs and claws hanging out". She was offering equal parts jest and friendly advice, but I offer that as a premise to this post in response to a comment on myprevious offering, and events since then. My last post was a dance, being on two practical sides of similar ideological issues. I tried to appeared rationale as opposed to a hypocritical. 
   Thanks to courage I oddly found watching Rachel Maddow's show last night, I will now own my hypocrisy.  In a segment comparing the hand-wringing over the "Big 3 bailout" to the weekend, cover of night cash injection to citigroup of roughly the same amount, she highlighted a concept that I have flirted with, and am now prepared to marry. The inherent societal inequity between the ease of white collar assistance and the aversion to blue collar aid.

  Quietly, while many were watching football, or finishing their shift at their second or third part time job to make ends meet, the Citigroup was offered 20 billion new dollars so that perhaps they would not have to layoff 52,000 employees. In our current climate I have no problem with spending money to keep people employed. 

  However, citigroup just got 25 billion to buy other failing banks, in which they failed, they also proceeded to spend 400 million for naming rights to the new home of the New York Mets. (I'm a diehard Met's fan, which I realize removes my last shreds of credibility and judgement). Saving 52 thousand jobs is laudable, the money citigroup received comes out of the previously dedicated T.A.R.P. funds, and to their credit citigroup did present a plan that is "workable" in the view of outside objective experts. But with that in mind how can our federal government swoop in to salvage 52 thousand white collar jobs without controversy yet stall at the prospect of saving millions of direct and ancillary jobs with the same price tag? If citigroup like the big 3 is in it's predicament because of mismanagement then clearly management is not the decision making standard. If 52 thousand medium to high paying jobs trump an untold amount of lower wage jobs then clearly maximizing employment salvage is not the trigger.


    For myriad reasons people of all walks of life have mused that this is a dangerous time in terms of the direction of the American Republic. To pile on to the paranoia I will submit my greatest fear. I offer that we are taking steps towards feudalism. We are on this path not due to malice but rather by the temptations of good intentions. Here is my case;

  1. People are born into an economic class, there is nothing to do about the accident of birth, but what happens thereafter is important. Generally speaking, those born into an economic class, are born into a community that shares that status. They attend schools with their peers, and absent external forces generally stay within their class, as they are only shown opportunities consistent with maintaining their status. In short, with rare exception the wealthy stay wealthy, and the not-wealthy stay that way. 

2. Those who do not have wealth make attempts through labor to gain it, those who do have wealth make attempts through policy to protect it.

3. Eventually the cultural cloistering of the have's and have not's creates a gap so large that one class has no means to empathize with what the life and needs of the other class truly are.

    That is the societal stage in which this drama unfolded;

1. Congress, as a result of their disconnect with their constituents fails to realize that borrowing 150 billion dollars to put $600 or less into the pockets of taxpayers does not meet the cost benefit analysis test. (Anyone in the mood for cake yet?)

2. A few months later Congress sees fit to spend billions of dollars to bolster individual investment firms, banking institutions and insurance companies.

3. A month later Congress finds the will to authorize the mortgage of our future to the tune of 810 billion dollars in loans, bailouts and pet projects, a double down on the voodoo philosophy of trickle down economics.

 While programs take time to work and doing nothing was clearly not a viable option, the actions of our leaders is consistent with the steady march towards feudalism. Wise or foolish, the economic recovery act of 2008 was born of good intentions, however with a population of roughly 300 million people, had we borrowed the combined 960 billion dollars and distributed those funds equally for every man woman and child in our nation, that would have equated to about $3,000 per individual, $6,000 per couple, $12,000 for a family of four. That unlike $600 or less, would have had a real impact on people's monthly overhead, for many that is several months of salary. This alongside aggressive debt restructuring (like we're doing now) would perhaps have returned liquidity to the financial markets using trickle up economics. If people spent the money recklessly it would have stimulated the economy through the demand side. If people used the money to become current on debts that would have stabilized the housing markets and avoided an untold amount of foreclosures while fortifying the balance sheets of lending institutions. Even if they only saved the money, banks would have had enough cash reserves to continue issuing both personal and commercial paper. And at the very least if all else failed, the lowest end of the economic spectrum would have had savings to ride out some unemployment (a lot of which would not have happened anyway). 
 
  Our current situation has many causes, not limited to supply side, trickle down economic theory, and lack of financial education for our citizens. We attempted to correct this course by slowing down with half measures like the stimulus package instead of full throttle reverse by at least taking a shot at demand side, rising tides economic policy, and aggressive financial education efforts. I guess "for every action and equal but opposite reaction" never occurred to an administration so opposed to science.

  My feudalism fear is about as warranted as the socialism fear which is to say, not at all. As unfortunate and rife with human costs our situation is, it is simply a correction that was inevitable and all we can really do is not panic, not make too many mistakes and see this for what it is, a once in a generation opportunity to address issues of generational poverty, education inequity and climate change through public works projects while it will be politically popular.

   That said, now that the election is over it is safe to say I was originally a strong John Edwards supporter. I hope that his currentpersonal foibles don't keep him out of public life for too long as he was absolutely right about "The two Americas". Lyndon Johnson spoke of this in his term as President and our war on poverty is one of the few places in American society where we have made significant negative progress. Lyndon Johnson, at heart a populist, warned of the costs of the rift between the poor and everybody else. John Edwards in his campaign rightly pointed out that now, the rift is between the Very Wealthy and everybody else. It is important to note that I think having wealthy people is a good thing, in fact I aspire to be wealthy myself at some point. I also do not believe that taking from the rich to give to the poor is a good idea. But it is vital to the continuance of the principles on which our nation was founded to have the tools in place where personal responsibility is rewarded with enduring self reliance. 

  Our founding documents provide for the right to the pursuit of prosperity, but not a guarantee. However if we do not address the issues of generational poverty and education inequity, we find ourselves in violation of our core constitutional obligations. Worse if we continue to pursue the above policies forged in ideological disconnect, and do not bridge the cultural divide between those who lead and those who are led, we will only ensure that the wealthy will gather more wealth at the expense of others instead of in concert with them. If we do not, if only temporarily redirect our focus the most benevolent actions of people of means will only result in long term dependency on the  wealthy by the poor.  Whether the relationship is based on employment or housing,  our current path without caution and re-prioritization will only cause those with means to consolidate tremendous wealth and further bifurcate our society. 

  Finally to speak to the criticism of my post "The Prius Problem", I'd first say, thanks for the comment and keep them coming! I am a product of conservatory training. My educational background is of the classical training where improvements come from criticism and deconstruction by the instructor. For me this blog is equal parts sharing my views and an educational exercise. You the reader are my instructor, without your comments I cannot know if my thoughts are being conveyed with clarity so I respect and encourage your comments on both the content and the style. In the classical training model it is the obligation of the student to also be self critical and defend their actions. 

  I will begin with self criticism. My greatest weakness is brevity. I attempt to make connections between opposing arguments, because I am a "big picture" thinker. I realize however that I am not alway efficient with language.  A lengthy thought process is no excuse for verbosity. Further, from my experiencing teaching I don't assume prior knowledge. Speaking to prerequisite information can clarify an argument, the liability however is that it can at best be redundant, and at worst appear smug. With the context that I intended to speak to a broad audience on complex issues, by all means offer critical analysis as to where I have added more than is necessary or  simply have stated something to prove that I know it.

     I strive to present the wisdom of the argument, not the author. 

  With acknowledgment of my deficiency in brevity, I defend my rhetorical style. I use "big" words. And I will continue to do so. I make bold statements and will continue to do so. I make bold statements because it is not my intention that the reader necessarily agree with me but rather to provoke thought and discussion. Without provoking argument how will I know when I am wrong?  My use of vocabulary is not in spite of my modest upbringing but rather in honor of it. My mother, my teachers, and my friends who have been sources of intellectual and personal nurture did not make financial and personal investments in me for me to sound uneducated. I may have come from a humble beginning, but my world view has been shaped by my formative years in the playground of a housing project as much as my  language was synthesized in the hallowed halls of our nations finest private institutions of higher learning. I have strong ties to, and my desire to work in public service is a result of, my relationship with working people. I do not believe that even the most common are incapable of understanding my words, and I further disagree that the case of the struggling can be made without the most eloquent of language. Common vernacular is too weak for uncommon challenges.

  And finally ahead of this Thanksgiving holiday I would like to share how thankful I am for the great people in my life, and diversity of experiences that have made me whole. I am eternally grateful for the opportunities that have been presented to me, particularly this year, but over the course of my life that have given me a rare understanding of our nation, our society and myself. With the challenges ahead both personal and public, I close this year with a profound sense of good will, a renewed sense of providence, and a reaffirmed belief that we do, for our challenges, live in a time that has the greatest level of opportunity afforded to people in the history of mankind. May you have a joyous holiday season.

  I'm a used car salesman. A job does not necessarily define a person, as I am also Principal Clarinetist of the Wyoming Symphony, a Citizen at large member of the City of Boulder Downtown Management Commission, all the while I have degrees from Juilliard and the University of Colorado. I say all that not to down play that my "real job" is that I'm a used car salesman, because frankly I don't believe my profession needs defense. Like all professions there are the good and the bad actors. But I do present the breadth of my professional ties as a preface to this post because it will be obvious to the reader that my interest in the subject goes beyond simple desire for the best interest of our country.  

   My livelihood is directly dependent on the health of the credit markets and the auto industry. While my connection is direct, it should be noted that the jobs many in our country are only a degree of separation or less from the health of these industries.

   I was opposed to the  economic recovery act of 2008. I was also opposed to the bailouts of individual firms that preceded it, and I saw only folly in the economic stimulus package. Most people can't even remember what happened to their stimulus check except they remember that it didn't solve any of their problems. 
  
 Perhaps the multiple bailouts forestalled economic tragedy before an election, but to the 6.5% of Americans unemployed and the untold amount that are under-employed our nations financial woes are real and the academic discussion of "it could have been worse" is uninteresting. 
  
 As congress and our president weigh options for a $25 billion rescue for our automakers, I struggle to see the logic. In defense of congressional democrats as well as the president, the plans do not involve new spending. The democrats want to include the big 3 in the $810 billion package (yes $700 billion is the amount marked for stimulus but the full price tag after pork was $810 billion and the media should not let the public forget it) while the president wants to expedite and re-direct a loan program already approved for auto  industry innovations. 
 
 However  GM, Ford, and Chrysler do not exclusively make up the American auto industry. Makers like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, and even BMW make plenty of cars right here in America. Walk out to your import right now and check the first digit of the VIN#. If it is not a W, J, 3 or Y, then your X5, Accord or Outback is made right here in the U.S.A. Some have argued that it would be unfair to the employees of those makers to tweak the market in favor of the Detroit boys. They question why these foreign makers who pay good wages can succeed where our domestic brands have failed?  More on that later . . .

 The reason why it is prudent to consider salvation for the big 3 is that the foreign makers rely on the same suppliers and the same basic retail infrastructure. With the failure of the American makers it does put in serious jeopardy the supply lines and sales mechanisms for the entire industry. The ripple effect of unemployment from the assembly line, to the sales floor, to the lunch counter is different than the financial markets in the sheer number of people and their unique unpreparedness for unemployment. Granted there were low level and ancillary jobs lost on wall street, but the majority of people on wall street did have personal saving safety nets. THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT SCENARIO.
 
 The American auto industry has one unique problem. GM, Ford and Chrysler's biggest operating problem is legacy. While the leaders of industry have fought to maintain our current private, employer based health care and retirement system it is ironically crushing them. The big 3 are paying through the nose entitlements to people who have not worked a day in 20 years. That is not to forgive management excess and greed, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to legacy entitlements. (Not to mention those entitlements can't keep up with inflation anyway)  The long term fix is to change how we do health care and pension. In the short run, perhaps the best approach for federal intervention is to buy those health care and pension plans. Relieving the operating cost pressure may free up capital for innovation to spark demand for American cars.
  
But aside from the political hot potato that would be, we all know that entitlement problem is not the entire problem. The American car companies have a Prius problem. 
  
 GM had the electric car. Let's assume that it was in fact a financial disaster. Okay fine. Let's further assume that the bigger the vehicle the more profitable it is. The issue is foresight and judgement.  While Honda built the insight, the first mass marketed Hybrid car, they also  built the Ridgeline. Volkswagen introduced the TDI while making a foray into SUV's with the Tourag, and Minivans with the Tiguan. Toyota cornered an entire market with the Prius while competing with the big 3 with models like the Tundra, the Sequoia, and the Highlander. And what did the American makers do? They made their fuel efficient cars bigger and less efficient, and doubled down on SUV's and trucks. Since when does it make business sense to have a less diversified portfolio?  It's not as if they did not have the example of the competition. It's not as if they did not see their market share fall and see who and what was replacing them. The imports where wise, not lucky. Even though fuel was cheap and credit was cheaper, they found market voids and filled them. They invented the alternative fuels market, they put a stranglehold on the efficiency market and just incase the SUV wasn't a fad of cheap oil, they competed with the American's on their own 10 yard line with high quality SUV's and Trucks built by American's in American factories from Mississippi to Kentucky.
 
   Now that the chickens have  come home to roost, GM is 2 years away from selling their most innovative product. If GM wants cash then fine, but they should use it to put the Volt in showrooms NOW and it needs to be the price of the Prius but they want to sell it for the price of 2! The American car makers failed at a fundamental of business. If your competitor is making money doing something, then do it better and cheaper. With the level of mismanagement it is hard to conclude that giving these firms any money is a good idea.
 
 So I, like many, struggle. If the government is going to step in, it has to do it now, GM and by extension, Ford, Chrysler as well as the American arms of import makes cannot survive until January, and they will not recover from bankruptcy. Aside from the fact that these companies will find it nearly impossible to raise capital in chapter 11, even if they could, the mass unemployment will make innovation unimportant when there are no customers to buy. After all, the auto industry at the end of the day is primarily in sales. Further as we approach the holiday season which is important for all retailers this uncertainty is causing people to hold their money crippling the broader economy. Even if our nations leaders finally throw up their hands and say that we're going to let the the big 3 fall, that would actually be better for consumer confidence as those who know they will be unemployed will likely spend to make this one last holiday season before the truly hard times hit rememberable for their kids and their families. But instead we wallow in partisanship. Nothing is worse than uncertainty.
 
   The democrats could wait until January and have it their way which will be too late for not just GM but for Toys R Us, Macy's and every shopping center and municipality that relies on those sales tax dollars across the country. Or they can cave, let the president have it his way and introduce new legislation for industry innovation next session when the man in the White House won't have an itchy veto pen. But as late as November 17th we are stalled in the exact partisan gridlock the American people voted against only 2 weeks ago.


  I am too torn between my personal best interests to decide if bailing out the big 3 is truly in the country's best interest or not, though as stated earlier this is different than wall street and I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing academic about what will happen if even one of the big 3 closes. We know that dealers big and small, franchise and independent, along with your neighborhood mechanic, parts store, and by distant extension perhaps diner and toy store will not be far behind in going under taking irreplaceable jobs with them. 


  Since we have already made so many fiscal mistakes, since we have shown sympathy to the top of the tax bracket at the expense and despite vocal opposition of the bottom, since any misdirection of funds can be corrected through legislation in 2 months. Whereas in these trying times it is more important to get something done than be "right" congress should either pass a bill or stop talking about it. We can't solve all of the auto industries problems with the stroke of a pen, we can cure the uncertainty that is plaguing our retailers in some short measure and perhaps save our holiday season. With knowing their future perhaps people will even have the piece of mind to buy a ticket to their local orchestra's holiday concert.
  
 The question that needs to be asked from a point of dispassion is, What is the best way to protect American Jobs? The answer is pass legislation now. To the person on the receiving end of the paycheck, it doesn't matter who crafted the policy or what it might do. Our auto makers must solve the Prius problem the Democrats are right about that, but let's talk about that in January, for now lets take action based on the path of least resistance. Democrats will be behind the wheel soon, if the republicans want to redirect fuel efficiency money, let them. It's a 9 week problem, 9 weeks working class Americans don't have to spare.

 The results of this election told us more about America than just who the next President will be. 

  At the risk of sounding obvious the election of the first "non-white male" President is a big deal. What is less obvious is why exactly this event is a big deal. We habitually make a big deal of the first "non-white male" anything for good reason in our society. Let's not forget that our founding fathers, benevolent in the context of their era created a society that by design excluded anyone that wasn't a white male (or protestant and rich for good measure) so any milestone is a cause for celebration.    
What we too frequently forget however is in the interim, we should credit ourselves for making steady progress towards reconciling the spirit of equality  with the letter of our founding documents. 
   
  We live in a world where the disease of bias and intolerance does still plague far too many. Those who suffer from this illness as well as those who are afflicted by the symptoms should not be forgotten. But what the election of Barack Obama has shown us that this infection is no longer an epidemic. Senator Obama will rise to the Presidency with the confidence of Americans of all backgrounds, but like his predecessors he secured victory with the endorsement of the majority of white males who cast their ballot. There were many who as late as the announcement of the returns questioned whether this outcome would be possible. As late as the projections of the winner some held doubts that America was ready. Barack Obama, however, like so many successful people of color knew that not only was America ready, but this is  a place that America has been for quit sometime. We are not perfect but in the pursuit of the perfection of our union, leaders like Senator Obama, and to his credit Senator McCain as evidenced by his campaign understood that by and large Americans consider the content of the characters running for office in concert with the color of their skin.  
   The passing of this milestone does have significant ramifications for our society that are enduring. For example, like my academic understanding which falls short of empathetic connection to the civil rights challenges of my grand-parent's generation, my grand-children will not have a context of what "it was really like" to assume that only white males can hold the highest office in the land. This disconnect from history, the movement from painful wound, to abstract historical fact is to be celebrated as it is society's way of healing. It is important, but it is however not a big deal.


    The closing of the chapter in our history where we believed that our racial divide was insurmountable is to be applauded. Likewise, the assumption that those who do not share our level of education, wealth, geography or whichever self selecting demographic we choose to define ourselves are incapable of considering the public good, as we suspect or they evidence the symptoms of bias  is a step towards bridging our intellectual and ideological divide. This is noteworthy and laudable, but it is no big deal.
What is a big deal is that we no longer have an excuse to not address our biggest social ill. While we have aggressively treated the crisis of bias, curing some, soothing the symptoms for many, another tragic illness has infected our society and is now at epidemic portions. Poverty demands our full and undivided attention, but for too long we have confused this new disease alternatively as a symptom of racial bias or side effect of the treatment. Now that we have proven to liberal and conservative alike that when it truly matters, that when it's a question of the direction of our country, that we are capable of bridging consensus  across the river of race, is it not now the time to give ourselves credit for reliving the crisis of racial inequity? Is it possible that we can now recognize the crisis that is the epidemic of poverty?
   
  Poverty is a self perpetuating disease. It is also pervasive and a woefully inefficient aspect of society. All of society's ills from crime, to violence, corruption and greed and yes even racial bias itself stem from the competition for limited resources that poverty compels. The good news is that many of the treatments for bias are also effective in treating poverty. Also like the crisis of bias, we will get to a tipping point  where the cure will become self perpetuating. For example one very effective treatment for poverty is education. An effective dose of education includes more than simple academic instruction but also includes vocational and practical training. Investments in education and the resulting reduction of poverty reduces the need to finance  mitigation like jails and social assistance programs. As those resources are required less, the capitol can be diverted to education and other programs that promote self reliance.
  
   So at this juncture where we have seen our society in the mirror, where we have viewed the improved,if imperfect image, the question is will we accept the lesson and redirect our focus accordingly, or should we continue to sooth the symptoms of a waning crisis because the realities of the emerging epidemic are too daunting. Where the crisis of bias challenged our souls, the epidemic of poverty will challenge our conscious and fundamental self interest. 
   
America's struggle with bias is unique to our history. Since it is a problem we invented we can invent the solutions. What the election of Barack Obama has reminded us is that the only known cure for bias, is the example that the premise of racism is unfounded. President elect Obama, along with Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, Oprah Winfrey and the  list of successful black Americans who proceed them set the stage for the extension of that list beyond them, not because they were able to rise above the disadvantage of historical bias, but because their unquestionable excellence forever dispelled the concept of genetic disparity. Poverty on the other hand is a social disorder as old as society itself born of the underlying human nature of self interest. Like the example of successful women and minorities that have broken the myths of bias, exposure inoculation is the only cure for poverty. The virus is self interest, but it is self interest itself that will immunize future generations. 
    What we know of self interest is that it is reliable. In order to reform our economic framework to reduce poverty the case will have to be made that it is in the best interest of the wealthy to reduce the plight of the poor. We have tried with limited success mechanisms to encourage philanthropy but to move to a culture of economic opportunity we will need leaders who can speak to every social class in their language. As a person who has lived in black america as well as white, working class as well as elite, President Obama will be uniquely prepared to play interpreter. If we can frame the debate of poverty as not a crisis of conscious  but a practical matter of efficiency we can make progress to break the epidemic of poverty using the very self interest that is the root cause.

The results of this election have told us that America is a better place than most of us realize. The charge that it has left us is to take head on the greatest social challenge of our day, which has been greatest challenge of society since there has been society.
     
     Armed with the tool of self interest and the knowledge of the good nature of Americans confirmed by these poll numbers, we can inspire the innovation to reduce poverty, rather than cajole results with guilt. As a practical matter we will need to reform the finance of education. If we do not ensure that all children have equal access to quality primary education, the scourge of poverty will erase our progress and destroy our union. We cannot concern ourselves with the "how" of education. The "if" is what matters. It does not matter "how" we fund schools, it matters "if" all of our schools are modern with excellent teachers in every classroom. It does not matter whether the school is public, private, charter, or the result of a voucher because we can no longer afford to have a marriage to a specific mean, but rather commit ourselves with the end. We live in diverse states in a big country and the funding mechanisms and practical delivery as a result will vary. What matters is if we are funding our children's education in a way that is egalitarian rather than equitable because we have learned that equitable is inherently unequal across the socio-economic spectrum. We achieve these goals by the example of why the investment in education is simply more cost effective than the costs of mitigating the consequences of generational poverty. 

     My hope for our next President and prayer for our people is that we have the courage to tackle this problem and the patience to see it through. In January if we choose to begin this journey we need to understand that it will take longer than 8 years. It has taken more than a century to heal the wounds of centuries of oppression that yet still occasionally bleed. Economic inequity is a cancer that has festered for and epoch so we cannot reasonably expect to send it into remission in a generation, let alone the term of office of an American President. But along the way we must acknowledge our progress as it is made. As we travel this path we can recognize failure and set back but we must never concede that we are incapable of doing better. This election has confirmed the long held position of many who have long known that America is indeed a more perfect union, and for those for whom this event has for the first time caused belief that in America all is possible, let's now join together, set aside the points we disagree and move with deliberate speed  to eject the tumor of poverty. It will not be easy, but what we now know for fact certain is that regardless of race or sex, in America all is possible if a child is given the tools of education. The only barrier that is universal is poverty. This election only removed a brick, it is now incumbent upon us to tear down the wall and allow the flood of prosperity to flow border to border and sea to sea.


This is what we now know, and it is a very big deal.

  As I stated in this post, I do not  believe a public figure's personal life with (limited exceptions) is an appropriate way to decide their value as a policy maker. Although given the option, I would be interested in knowing how, and why the cast their personal ballots a certain way. In an attempt to encourage this voluntarily disclosure (a mandatory disclosure would simply be un-american in my opinion), below find how I cast my ballot in the 2008 general election and the explanation of those votes. Whether your are viewing this post in the contemporary or, viewing from some point in the future in your process of deciding whether or not to vote for me, first, thanks for stopping by, and second I hope that you find my analysis to be thoughtful even if you disagree. History may prove some of these votes to have been misguided, or downright reckless. But today in this moment I defend them, but reserve the right to apologize for them should history have proven me wrong. 

  And finally a very "politician" thing to say, my vote does not constitute and endorsement. I believe government should make policy based on the way the world is, however it is appropriate for individuals to vote for the world as they feel it ought to be. I cast my ballot according to what I believe to be the correct direction, regardless the outcome of this election however the real work begins after the election.


Colorado 2008 Ballot:

The Votes I stand by

President: Barack Obama, DemocratWhile there are valid arguments against Senator Obama's candidacy, what I do know is this: When the people participate in the public process, the outcome is exponentially improved. Barack Obama's candidacy has been unprecedented in the engagement of disenfranchised voters. Granted it didn't hurt that the failures of the Bush administration and the resulting distrust of government at all levels helped return the focus of the public to importance of politics, but I do believe that Senator Obama embodies for many what is truly right with America. That said even if Barack Obama's candidacy was not an extraordinary revitalization of democracy, on a practical level, in the face of the challenges we face, the last thing we need is an obstructionist government. The Democratic party will have the majority in both houses of congress. While I normally support the check of ideological opposition in government, in emergency times, it would be unwise to elect a potentially veto happy executive branch.

U.S. Senate: Mark Udall, DemocratMark Udall is clearly a better candidate for our times than his opponent Bob Schaffer. Our environmental crisis did not go away because of our economic collapse. However it has certainly fallen off the radar. While addressing our immediate fiscal crisis is top priority and it ought to be, I am confident that Mr. Udall who has been a staunch supporter of conservation and renewable energy remembers that climate change is real, pressing and I trust that he will return to his hallmark agenda as early as is practical. Mr. Udall has also cast 3 important votes in his career that showed tremendous courage and history has proven, sound judgement. He voted against the war in Iraq and voted twice against the economic recovery act of 2008 (known in contemporary parlance as the 810 billion dollar wall street bailout). Mark Udall will be an important voice for our "other" biggest problem, he needs to be elected to ensure that the environment  does not fall away from the list of priorities in this mad dash to soothe our recession, and avoid a full blown depression. Our environmental, and economic challenges are actually one and the same and we need a member of the Senate who will lead the charge to tackle them at the same time.

U.S. Congress: Jared Polis, DemocratIn the interest of full disclosure, Jared Polis is a friend of mine, and my personal "economic stimulus plan" is to work on Jared's congressional staff (there are currently no specific plans to hire me, this idea is my idea and my idea alone). With that said, Jared simply is the candidate that holds values of the district he seeks to represent. The Republican candidate Scott Starin, seems to be a bright guy and a "good Republican" in the sense that he believes in some of the things that I agree with in terms of states right's, local control, and efficient free markets, and it is unfortunate that many republicans that are true to the historical fundamentals of the party will get swept away in the democratic tsunami. Mr. Starin's other challenge  is that Jared Polis also believes in efficient free markets, local control, and states rights. Mr. Polis is a different the kind of democrat, the kind that was needed in the congresses of 2001-2006. A socially liberal, fiscally conservative leader who understands how to speak to people in their own language. Thanks to Jared I have now seen the wisdom of charter schools for example. Mr. Polis has a unique ability to figure out what is truly important to a person and either learn and amend his position or when appropriate sell his position. This skill will serve him well in congress. Finally at the age of 33 Jared will be the standard bearer for a new generation of leaders. His perspective is one that is missing from congress since Bobby Jindal (Republican) left to become Governor of Louisiana. Though I disagreed with some of Mr. Jindal's philosophies, there was no denying that his perspective was one that I frequently found compelling because he spoke in the language of my generation. Jared is not an ideologue but rather a pragmatist. He believes, whether the issue is education, health care, or the myriad challenges the next congress will face, that the important question is not "how" to solve the problem but rather "if" the solution is going to work.  Without a commitment to an ideological "partisan way" Jared will seek the compromise to ensure the efficiency, and efficacy of federal programs.

University of Colorado Regent:  Joseph Neguse, DemocratIn the interest of full disclosure, Joe is also a friend of mine, I did no investigation into the republican candidate because though I fear the at some point I may run against and loose to Joe in a primary, I still feel honored to cast a vote that launches what will be a stellar political career. Further Joe is probably the most qualified person on the ballot in the context of the office they are seeking. A recent executive of the student government, and intern for speaker of the house Andrew Romanoff, Joe knows the State Capitol about as well as he knows CU. Joe's passion and energy will only be shadowed by his technical expertise. It is just my hope that Joe likes the job, that will keep him busy while I run for the general assembly, wink wink.

Colorado State Senate: Rollie Heath, DemocratThere was no republican candidate for this office which I think is unfortunate. Fortunately Rollie is a moderate. In the primary I supported his opponent Cindy Carlisle. Ms. Carlisle is probably a better ideological representation for the district. She was also the insurgent candidate. It was very clear Mr. Heath's candidacy had a lot to do with party insider politics. It is noteworthy that in a very liberal district, in a political climate running to the left, Mr. Heath (who by the way I am closer to ideologically than Ms. Carlisle which is to say to the right of the median of the district) trailed Ms. Carlisle at the county convention populated by very liberal "Obamacrats" only to win a clear victory in the primary. This is attributable to a number of factors not limited to the unfortunate timing of controversial but correct votes cast by Ms. Carlisle as a member of the board of regents, but there is no denying that inside party politics had a hand in that outcome. All that said, I believe Rollie will do a very good job, he will bring credibility to that seat infamous (in Denver, not in my opinion) for far left policy. Rollie is probably the best opportunity to show the state that Boulder can send pragmatic centrist leaders to Denver, and perhaps by simply being himself (again Rollie and I agree on most things, particularly his drive to return vocational training to public primary education) Mr. Heath can dismantle some of the stereotypes of the district 18 seat. Rollie will serve us well.

Boulder County CommissionersWe elect our county commissioners all at large, without getting into the flaws of that system, suffice to say that it is unfortunate the degree to which urban values become imposed on rural Boulder County. Further while I personally know and sincerely like all 3 current commissioners, the lack of intellectual diversity on the board is troubling to me, for that reason I choose the following candidates
Ralph Schnelvar, LibertarianCindy Domenico, Democrat

Amendment 46: Yes For a very thorough explanation click here

Amendment 47: Yes For an explanation and a funny story click here

Amendment 48: NoA person's choice for how to manage their reproductive health is simply not an appropriate role for Government.

Amendment 49: NoI reconcile my vote of yes on 47 with my vote of no on 49. If a person has the option to join a union or not, pay the dues or not, then I don't have a problem with the automatic payroll deduction. Is this the use of public resources for "private" union activities, yeah sure it is, but really the amount of staff time to do these payroll reductions is no more than an accounting error. I'm all for increasing efficiency in government. This measure however is not about efficiency, it's a punitive measure against union's masquerading as ethics reform.

Amendment 50: Yes People who have a gambling problem have a social disease, keeping the stakes low does not cure that disease, in fact, much like diet soda and light cigarettes, low stakes likely exacerbate the problem by giving the illusion of safety. Giving communities the ability to decided what types of gaming they want to have would have been fine enough for me to support, the additional honey pot of money for education was to too much for me to resist, let the games begin!

Amendment 54: NoWhen you become a public employee, you don't cease being a citizen. It is patently outrageous to say that because you have a government contract you should be disallowed from contributing to or supporting political candidates. Is there collusion in public life, of course, but we're talking about teachers and firefighters here, this is a slippery slope that leads to a valley where by the same logic you could argue these folks should not be allowed to even vote. Is that a paranoid concern? Yes, but I think there are too many that don't quite understand the end game of this measure.

Amendment 59: No I just couldn't say forever. I really wanted to vote for 59. I support the concept of a savings account for public education. I think the financing of public education should be a major priority for our state, particularly to alleviate inequity between wealthy and poor school districts as well as the disparity between urban and rural school districts. I just believe that there has to be a better way to do it than forever signing away any TABOR refunds. Another issue here is, let's say this had been in effect this fiscal year, well that would mean that a. $0 dollars would have gone into the savings account, b. There would not have been a compulsory increase in education spending next year (59 would repeal amendment 23) and c. had this not been a referendum C year, effectively, education spending would have ratcheted  down.  I do think there needs to be a dialogue about dismantling  TABOR, but let's have that talk instead of trying to disassemble it piece by piece. And finally should 59 fail, perhaps that will be the impetuous  for our general assembly to finally make primary education funding a priority, that after all is THEIR JOB!

Referendum L: Yes
Only I wish they went all the way to 18. If you have the right to vote, you should have the right to lead, or at least the right to run for office. If the candidate is not prepared the people won't elect them, but there are people that are 25 years old that can add valuable perspective, particularly in the arena of education in the general assembly. 
Further  should 25 year olds begin getting elected, I believe the result would be a larger participation in government and politics at all levels by young people. The key to bringing in disenfranchised voters, regardless if the class of people is an age, a race, or a sex, is the example of someone like them in elected office. Jared Polis in congress, Joe Neguse as regent will inspire other young people to participate. The general assembly will be better for young elected members.

Boulder County 1A: YesI admit that I am myopic when it comes to renewable energy. 1A effectively turns the entire county into an improvement district and by doing so  gives regular homeowners access to low cost municipal financing for renewable energy and efficiency projects. This unlike standard bonds however is NOT tax-payer financed. These bonds are paid by self selecting participants and while there will be some administrative costs those are more than offset by increased property tax assessments on participating properties.

Boulder County 1B: NoI was not convinced to satisfaction leaving public grants to non-profit organizations to the whim and tastes of elected officials is a very good idea.
Retain Judge Klien: NoHe made a very bad call. The job of a judge is to be judicious, he failed that test, I suspect he will get re-elected anyway but at least I am not complicit in that.

City of Boulder 201: NoThis new property tax assessment could potentially limit the tolerance for education and county public safety taxation measures. The City needs additional revenues, the city organization is a little bloated, and could definitely use de-brucing of it's revenue streams but the property tax is a cop-out that endangers agencies like the school district that don't have anywhere else to turn.

City of Boulder 202: Yesclick here

City of Boulder 2A: Yesclick here

City of Boulder 2B: YesJust because I disagree with the decisions of the council does not mean they are corrupt. In fact it would be better if they were corrupt because at least then there would be a way to change their mind's. Rather our council (not all just 4 in particular) are zealots who truly believe they are doing the right thing. I strongly disagree, however if they are going to pursue divisive and anti-business, anti-middle class, anti-common sense policies, they might as well be efficient at it. Executive sessions are a matter of efficiency for a very transparent, very honest, if not equally misguided political body. Further executive sessions for Boulder City Council is consistent with the leadership of most our peer Colorado municipalities.

City of Boulder 2C: YesThis is simply a logistical clean-up

City of Boulder 2E: YesWith the wealth of visiting expertise thanks to being the host of the state's flagship institution of higher learning, it's simply a practical matter to have the ability to tap into that knowledge base.


Buyer's Remorse
Elections are a long process, but eventually, you cast a vote and make a choice, and sometimes immediately thereafter you regret your choice, the following votes are ones that I cast and now have already reconsidered. 

Boulder County Commissioners: Ben Perlmann (Democrat)
As stated I know and like our county commissioners though I have frequently disagreed with there policies. I think the board would be best served by some intellectual balance hence I voted for Libertarian Ralph Schnelvar. Of the three incumbents I believe Domenico to be the most pragmatic so I was glad to vote for her. However I know wish I had voted for at least one Republican for no other reason than to encourage the party to strengthen itself. Though I endorsed national one party rule in this election, I made the caveat that the urgency of our times demand it. However, by and large Boulder County is in good shape and I believe would be even better with a stronger Democracy. I believe that the incumbents will be re-elected handily, however the percentage break down does matter for future elections and I regret not voting for Perlmann's Republican challenger for that reason. 
Colorado State Representative: Dickey-Lee Hullinghorst
This buyer's remorse is a personal one. I've gotten to know Dickey-Lee. I believe she will do a good job. What I regret is that I did not run for the seat myself. Had I run, I'm sure I would have lost in the primary. And if I thought the Republican challenger had an even outside chance of winning I would have voted for her so that I could run as a centrist Democrat (which I am) in 2 years which would have been possible. But I caved. I was encouraged (cajoled) not to run because "it was Dickey-Lee's" turn. That is not democracy, the function of a political party is not to be a power broker, particularly inappropriate for the Democratic party. One party rule is bad because it compels the radical pendulum swings that cause chaos on the implementation level of public policy. Remember long after leaders are gone the staff of public agencies remain, often to find themselves doing complete about faces once every 4-8 years. One party rule also encourages a system of spoils while removing the best tool moderate new candidates have in a primary contest which is "I can beat the other party" Since I am liberal I don't mind far left candidates, and frequently vote for them, but it would be at best disingenuous  to not acknowledge that it is the very primary process, particularly in uncontested primaries (which this was, as far as I know I was the only person who dared show interest in interrupting the coronation) that train candidates to be radicals rather than centrists.
  I wish Dickey-Lee well, I would concede that in the question of "experience" she is more qualified than I, though I am not completely comfortable with all of her policy positions, and for that reason I cannot guarantee that I will sit out for 8 years. All that said my remorse in my vote has nothing to do with Dickey-Lee and much more to do with me regretting the fact that I caved for the "good of the party". And for that I owe the residents of house district 10 an apology.

Amendment 52: Yes 
 I liked the concept of dedicating resources to specifically address the states transportation problems, however I am generally uncomfortable with dedicated funds, particularly constitutionally dedicated funds. Dedicated funds is the public's way of punting responsibility. I understand the concept of "vote for specific funding because politicians can't be trusted", however I challenge that argument by saying that it is our obligation to elect politicians that we do trust. The reason to have a general assembly is because in the dynamic world of public policy, priorities change. We should have the confidence in elected officials to respond to changing challenges and opportunities on our behalf. And should a leader not honor that confidence we do have remedies for that, namely recalls and elections.

Amendment 58: YesThough I fundamentally agree with the policy, and generally discount the potential negative fallout in terms of the price of consumer natural gas, I regret my vote of yes because this measure is clearly punitive. To "raise" (in reality normalize the statutory rate) taxes on a specific industry because they are particularly profitable is a bad precedent. Sure this time it's "the big evil, Mr. Burnsesque" Oil companies, who are making record profits, and are not paying the current statutory tax rate, and yes they will still have a comparatively  low effective tax rate, but it is clear that there is the air of opportunism in the timing of the measure, and the political advertising in support makes it clear that the intention of this amendment is to be punitive.
And now enjoy this video supplement with clips from a early voting rally by Jared Polis' campaign

 Yesterday after a campaign event for Obama, Udall and Markey where I was a featured performer and speaker, I got an email from Bob Moore, editor at the Fort Collin's Coloradoan, that informed me that this little blog which I was pretty convinced nobody read, and that my youtube video page which I was sure nobody cared about it were at the center of a congressional campaign scandal.    At this  debate  there was a back and forth between the candidates regarding YouTube videos that were posted about them. Ms. Musgrave said that  Markey would not debate offshore drilling stating "You say drill, I say no, debate over". Ms. Markey responded by accusing the Musgrave campaign of following her around with cameras and posting videos edited for their advantage on YouTube.   Turns out they were both a little right, both a little wrong, so here are the charges and here is the truth, I know what the truth is because I was there, I have it on tape, in fact I was the one holding the Camera.
Musgrave-  Markey does not want to debate off-shore drilling.
  False.  Markey clearly states in both my video and the version stolen and posted by "TheNRCC" on youtube   that she opposed drilling in ANWR.

Musgrave- The video was posted by one of your supporters because he was so proud of your position.   Half true- The video (which by the way is woefully boring) is just raw footage from the delegate breakfast. It was posted so that those who were for some odd reason curious about what happens at delegation breakfasts could get a peek. Markey's remarks were just a small portion and I posted what everyone said, regardless of my opinion of what was said, it was a piece of journalism (admittedly poorly done journalism), not an opinion piece and certainly was never intended to be a campaign spot for anybody. That said I do strongly support Betsy Markey in the CD4 race.
Markey- It was one of your supporters that was following me around . . .  False, it was me, Shawn Coleman, DNC delegate for Obama who was trying to capture the "excitement" of the DNC for the folks at home, between chugging down orange juice, and eating too much bacon
Markey- It was edited to distort my words  Half true- It was stolen by another youtube user, and taken out of context, however it was not edited, not for content, not even to get rid of that guy walking back and forth. Oddly enough the thief and the Musgrave campaign were so excited about a potential "gotcha" moment that they couldn't even be bothered to edit it to make her "say" what they wanted. Had it been edited to delete the specific reference to ANWR it would have also cleared up the guy walking back and forth . . . odd.
So in terms of "truthiness" this is a draw, but we have learned the following lessons.1. The internet has absolutely no credibility, NONE2. These types of "controversies" make both parties look bad3. Somebody cares what I think!
And it leaves us with the following questions . . .1. Who's job is it to peruse  youtube for gotcha moments?2. How much do they make and are they hiring?3. Do I get a check for this clip?4. No really how much is someone going to pay me for that clip, I support Markey, but I'm happy to take a check from the Musgrave campaign, I assure you I will not use it to make a campaign contribution, so seriously where's my cut?
   The one thing I have learned about life is that even when you are being "ironical" It is important to point out that your are speaking in Jest. Particularly important when it turns out that like me, you aren't very funny, pithy, or particularly bright. So for the record the facts of this post are just that, facts but this post was written in jest.
    BUT I AM TRYING TO MAKE A POINT TO ALL POLITICIANS:
When you engage in these petty arguments, you look ridiculous. Real people, with Real Mortgages, Real employment problems, Real healthcare issues do not care about who said what about who on YouTube. They do not care at all, not even a little bit.      They do care about what policy positions you might have, they do care about what you will do to address our nations current problems, they do care about how you may tackle future unknown challenges, some people even care about your general philosophy on the role of Government.     But what I assure you is that to the end that our "leaders" engage in these ridiculous side shows instead of  real policy, is the end to which our public will disengage, and our public discourse will decay.  When will politicians learn what we all already know, "It's a bad idea to roll around with a pig in the mud, you just get dirty and the pig likes it."

And now for the smoking cameras! The first clip is the NRCC clip, and below is the actual footage. And last, a cinema take on what our public discourse will become unless politicians stop wallowing in mud, and if we the people don't stop tolerating (encouraging) it. It's from the movie Idiocracy, if you haven't seen it, grab a six pack and add it to your netflix list.

  I  have never been so hopeful that I'm wrong. I hope that my views that a bailout bill's undermining of fiscal discipline and exacerbating effect on the fundamental cause of our financial crisis will be proven a naive and ignorant viewpoint by history.   I hope that what started as an unprecedented 700 billion dollar devaluation of our currency that has bloated to 810 billion will introduce liquidity that will in fact reverse the decades of damage in mere months.  I hope that financial markets and individuals will somehow learn despite evidence to the contrary, that fiscal responsibility is a requirement in society as there will not be endless offsets to gross mismanagement.    And finally I deeply hope that by adding 110 Billion dollars of special interest give-aways for Rum, Racetracks, and Wooden Arrows, we do not teach our elected representatives that if you dig in your heels in the name of representing public will, the reward will be fantastic sums of cash for your project du-jour, public will be damned.   I truly hope that in ten years when total financial collapse was avoided, fiscal responsibility returns to Wall street, Main street, the Side streets and Pennsylvania avenue, I will have to accept for responsibility for my reckless, and irresponsible, viewpoints against the economic recovery act of 2008. I look forward to the apologies I will offer to those who were simply wiser than me. I cannot wait to admit how woefully wrong I was and thank those who truly saw the scale and scope this problem in ways I was clearly incapable of understanding.  It is curious however that a bill that was not good enough, that was to expensive, has apparently become palatable with the adornment of 110 billion worth of lard. I hope that a body that finds a steady diet of pork so irresistible in the face of self described cardiac arrest will survive long enough to prove me wrong and accept that apology.

  In an unexpected and welcome display of leadership under duress, the people's house rejected a fool hardy scheme to borrow extraordinary sums of money to forestall an inevitable market correction. The economic stabilization act, otherwise known as a bailout was destined for failure because it was based on the same failed economic policies that set the stage for this economic crisis without addressing the behaviors in the public that exacerbated the philosophical flaws.  Let's for a moment assume that this situation is completely the fault of one sector of the economy, for the sake of argument let's say realtors are 100% solely responsible for this market meltdown. If it weren't for those awful realtors tricking innocent consumers into buying houses outside of their budgets, then all of this could have been avoided . . .NOT TRUE, the evil scheme of this malicious industry would have actually worked out just fine by and large had there not been a perfect storm. And no matter who you choose to blame for this collapse (HINT it's pretty much everybody's fault)  the malfeasance would have sorted itself out in an organized fashion had not the following things all happened at the same time.
  1. Stagnant to declining wages  2. Skyrocketing consumer price index, particularly in the energy sector  3. Devaluation of the dollar  4. Stagnant to declining property values
 The economic stabilization act sought to return liquidity to the market by introducing large sums of cash. Sure the government would be "buying assets" of which no one is truly sure about the value, but the point is that there would be a lot more cash in the system. This would have only exacerbated the devaluation of the dollar issue, thus driving up the consumer price index, effectively offsetting any increases of wages, forcing more foreclosures, which adds to the housing stocks and devalues  property. This bailout effectively hits everyone of the problems and makes them 700 billion dollars worse. Of course there are other externalities such as those who defaulted on their mortgages because health care issues, student loans, bad luck . . . However the market simply cannot survive this perfect storm. The bailout does not address the fundamental flaw of deregulated markets, financial illiteracy. If Americans were financially literate they simply would not have entered into bad mortgages, (or car loans, or credit card agreements) in the first place. There is no doubt that without a bailout our economic climate will continue to deteriorate however congress should not attempt to rescue this bill. The only possible benefit of this bill passing would have been the psychological effect on the markets. However that ship has now sailed as well. Congress had no good options but they made the wise choice. Trickle down economic policy, coupled with financial illiteracy in the public has finally born it's fruit and the only practical solution is to let the cards fall where they may.    That is not to say there is no role or responsibility for government intervention, but the financial markets need to learn consequence. Free markets can work provided there is not the distortion of a government bailout should we get too greedy. This will be a painful lesson but one that must be taught. This financial bailout was simply more trickle down economics, pouring 700 billion taxpayer dollars into the top of the financial market with the hope that it would free up credit and bolster jobs. If there is a role for a socialized rescue it would make more sense to bailout individuals. I would not support that plan either but the rising tides model could actually work. If we offered qualified distressed homeowners a mortgage buy down, that would also return liquidity to the market, while keeping people in their homes. However with the assistance would come mandatory financial training. It's easy to blame someone else but any financial mistake requires a seller and a buyer. It's too difficult and not even necessarily wise to overly regulate the sellers. When rules are too stringent it removes the ability of folks, particularly in the lower economic classes to take a calculated risk on themselves. The reason why prosperity follows depressions is because through hard knocks an entire generation learns the hard way about personal fiscal responsibility. Let's take the opportunity of this crisis to return financial education to schools, and relearn the concepts of saving and living within our means at all ages.   In terms of our economic crisis now, the blame game will not help. There are very few if any innocent players in this drama. That message is not one you're likely to hear from leadership in an election year because no one wants to hear about what part of their problem is their fault, particularly the electorate, however without every sector of the economy owning their responsibility, any "solution" will be a band aid on a cancer.

 Perhaps by the time I'm finished writing this post it will be clear to me how these measures actually work, and how I intended to vote on them. Unlikely, but perhaps.  I will preface by saying that I am torn because it's always hard to say no to a good cause, but I stumble en route to reward poorly written amendments, born of poor public process.    Let's first take them one by one. Amendment 58 would end the subsidy for energy companies. In short (relatively) the subsidy was designed to eliminate competition between counties based on radically different  revenue requirements and taxation philosophies. The theory being if taxation was equal then good land use, proximity to severable resources, and rational economic development would be the driver for energy firms and local planning and zoning departments rather than the cheapest possible taxation or maximum revenues respectfully. So the state rebates the severance tax differential thus the functional rate is equal across the state. FINE, what 58 wants to do is end the subsidy, so (political semantics) it is not a tax increase, rather imposition of the actual established tax rate. The additional revenue would be spent primarily on higher-ed scholarships for low and middle income students attending in-state schools, with some additional funding for renewable energy and environmental impact mitigation in communities where mining and drilling take place.
  So for me the pro's are 1. normalization of a subsidy 2. Higher-ed funding 3.  investing in renewable energy.  The con's 1.  reduction of a subsidy for an industry vital to our states economy 2. Scholarship funding for a select group instead of general education funding 3. replacing a subsidy, with a different subsidy.
   I don't mind subsidies. I think a subsidy is a good tool, provided there is either a clear economic benefit that outweighs the cost (as this subsidy did) OR an established public good,  and there is a sunset (which this subsidy does not have because it is pre-tabor). So this subsidy is yet another TABOR glitch and it is appropriate to ask the voters if they want to end this subsidy. But like so many constitutional amendments, it then gets complicated. It would have better to ask the voters to end the subsidy in one question and then ask how the money should be spent (or not) in a separate question.    I would even had been more comfortable with the money going into the states general fund and let the legislature decide which of the states priorities would benefit best from the new revenue, thats why we have a state house. But instead this measure earmarks the money for 3 separate issues, all of which I like however I question is this good government? If for example the revenue was going to be used for building a coal plant, a landfill and pink elephants, would I for it? So for me the question is not the worthiness of the cause, rationale of the funding mechanism.    52 without raising the severance tax (though it would work the same way should 58 pass, just with a lot more money) redirects funds from myriad programs placing it solely into transportation projects and improvements. I generally like this type of policy. We have a serious infrastructure problem in our state and good state governments know when it's time to focus on one thing. I wish we had Governors in our country willing to take the political heat to move a infrastructure agenda through. A Governor who would say "This year I will veto any bill that does not solve our education problems." Then another year, I will sign every bill that improves our states roads". This scenario would be wildly unpopular, political suicide, and really not very practical but I bet this hypothetical state would actually make progress by having strict priorities. 52 makes our states roads a priority and I like that, a lot. Do I want to starve water resource projects? NO. Do I think transportation is our only problem? NO. But I am very sympathetic to ethos of 52.
  But like 58, my biggest problem with 52 is that it goes into the state's constitution. Forever is too long for taxation policy. Tying funding for education to a resource that will run out is short sighted. Granted 50 years short sighted, but for me I wonder if it meets the constitutional standard.  Likewise it's a little awkward to put into the constitution, even as just a statute a spending provision with a sunset for a revenue stream that goes on forever (until the coal, oil, and natural gas, run out).
   One of our problems is that because of awkward, and contradicting constitutional provisions, we always have to go to the constitution to fix problems. Perhaps instead of 18 ballot measures what we need is a constitutional convention to clean things up. But aside from the umbrella problem of a cluttered document I would say that if I were to make a purely objective decision I would vote against both of these measures, and if I were to make an emotional decision I would vote for both of them.      It would have been ideal if the state house had done their job, done the heavy lifting on these issues and sent the people referendums. (For those unfamiliar with TABOR and Colorado's constitution, all taxes measures have to go to the ballot.) The political consequences would have been higher certainly, but as citizen initiatives the proposals end up with a  air of being punitive against energy companies, which really clouds the objective analysis of the important question here;
    Are these indirect funding mechanisms such a good way to fund scholarships and transportation projects, that they meet the standard of being in the constitution and worth the risk of setting a precedent for industry financing infrastructure improvements not directly related to or mitigating of it's activities?

  And so are the Republicans. I could use and extra couple hundred bucks, I don't know anybody who couldn't but when a play doesn't work, it's not a good idea to run it again. A second economic stimulus package is akin to bribing voters. It would be a bribe if Democrats push it through congress, and a bribe if the President signs it.   The last go around, the billions of dollars borrowed from future generations, brokered by China did not meet it's stated goal. Since the last package, our economy continues to struggle, and has hemorrhaged jobs, while the decline in buying power as a result of the devaluation of the dollar has offset whatever meager stimulation the American family received.   The plan didn't work the last time because of but not limited to the following reasons.
1. People don't have $600 problems. Folks have $6000 dollar problems, $60,000 problems, but $600 is simply not enough to right the average persons economic ship.
2. A plan based on responsible consumer spending only works if people . . . SPEND RESPONSIBLY. Those with personal responsibility put their bribe money directly into savings, or applied it against personal debt. 
3. $600 doesn't really buy anything. Those who did "go shopping" quickly realized that the new T.V. or car or whatever product they craved cost more than $600. Many people used the check as a launch pad to further extend their personal debt exacerbating the very problem it was trying to solve . Let's just forget that most of the products people did buy were made abroad.
4. Most people didn't even get $600 dollars. At less than 30k in income I only got $340 dollars. The amount was based on the taxes you paid. If you got the full $600 it probably means you paid WAY too much in taxes to begin with. If you got the full $600/$1200, then might I recommend that you either get an accountant, of fire the one you have.     If we are going to mortgage our future then why not an amount that could really help people. Give everybody $10,000, I'd actually go shopping at those numbers. Or how about a national mortgage buy down at $10,000 per primary residence, we are having a housing crisis right? That would stabilize mortgage  companies and reduce folks monthly payments. How about a $5000 buy down on car notes for those driving an American car (I own a VW outright so that wouldn't help me), A gas card? an home energy rebate?. . .   
  Now please know, especially any member of congress that might read this that I AM JOKING. I am being sarcastic, PLEASE DO NOT DO ANY OF THOSE PLANS!!! PLEASE!!!   The correct thing to do is nothing. Do not give international financiers another handsome brokers fee to borrow money from the unborn. Do not further devalue the dollar. Do not spend millions on the administrative costs to bribe the American people, the election is going to be close either way. You were elected to lead, not to pander. And while your at it, stop bailing out wall street  too.   If you have to throw money out of the treasury, throw it at a school, or a bridge, or a road. The fact that our elected leaders believe that in the cost benefit analysis, that $600 is a big enough impact on individuals to warrant extending national debt by $150 Billion dollars, while ignoring our nations infrastructure, and then decide to do it again is another indication of the dangerous disconnect between elected leaders and the finances of their constituents. What's next, should we just eat cake?   Shared responsibility is a fundamental of a functional society. However spreading around failure is not what was meant by shared responsibility. Giving away borrowed money, and absorbing the failure of lending institutions is a double whammy that the taxpayer did not ask for, nor need. That said If this irresponsible plan becomes a reality . . . Well I guess I do have a few bills that could use paying.

With the exception of exit polls, where a person is simply recounting what just happened.  I think polls are nothing to get excited about. I don't jump for joy when my candidate or issue is leading in polls nor do I panic when they fall behind.  

   The problem of polling is the demographic self selection. Those who can be bothered to actually talk to a pollster are folks who are more involved than average. The more politically involved a person is, the more committed to one agenda or another they are. Now this is not to say that everyone who responds to polls are consciously in the business of trying to influence the outcome of said polls.  -I'm just saying that most people who respond to polls are consciously or not, are in the business of trying to influence the poll. There are of course those that give their side "all 5's" and the opposition "all 1's" and there are probably about as many who are completely objective in their response. However the bulk of that bell curve are people who are decidedly on side or the other, and even if only in "moderate" support, can't help but staying on message.    The second self selection problem is that both poll respondents and those on the receiving end of the polling data are more likely to be in agreement anyway. Democratic pollsters simply have more contact info for Democrats and Republicans the same. "Liberal" media outlets, have more contact with "liberals than conservatives and vice versa.  And thats not anybody's "fault" it just good marketing and demographic research, after all T.V., Radio Stations, and Newspapers have to sell advertising space 365 days a year, they can't have a "separate but equal audience" for election season. (CNN's poll of polls tries to address this problem, but there is nothing to do about the first problem).  With all that said McCain currently has a slight lead in national polling (depending on who's poll you read), While Obama still has a slight lead in Colorado (depending). The change in polling is clearly a result of the Palin phenomenon. Palin is a game changer but I believe, if polls are to be believed, that Palin is as good for Obama as she is for McCain.  McCain's enthusiasm gap was supposedly a result of the lukewarm response among party faithful and the conservative base pledging to "sit this one out".  Well the biggest indicator of who is going to show up at the polls is, "has this person voted before?"   Voting like all habits are hard to start, nearly impossible to break. I never believed for a second that the conservative base was going to stay home. These are people with a proven track record of voting, and the far right base is much more disciplined in supporting the Republican ticket no matter what,than the far left is of grin and bearing in their view "too moderate" Democrats.    McCain via Palin has simply brought honesty into the conservative polling. His increase in support is among people who perhaps even convinced themselves they were not going to vote to own up to the fact that after all they will pull the lever for McCain. This is good for Obama for two reasons. 
 1. It is better to know about that electorate now. These people where going to vote McCain in November and there is no good in having a false sense of security. We now "know" who these people are, and how many of them there are.  2. Palin energizes the far left too! Now granted some of those folks will still cast a misguided vote for Nader or some other tacit endorsement of McCain because Obama is "not liberal enough".     It boggles the mind and piques the fascination  that there is the electorate that will continue to vote against their own best interests in the pursuit of perfection. This alongside a reliance on the famously unreliable youth, and first time voter is Obama's biggest challenge as well as his  aces in the hole. None the less, pocket rockets are a good thing to have, and the fact the other guy is showing a good hand doesn't change the benefit of having two aces in the hole in a game full of wild cards.   What I have found is that some conservatives are sincerely afraid of an Obama Presidency. They truly believe that the result will be a dramatic spike in taxation and loss of morality, none of which is true but perception is reality. Well the good news for the Democrats is that Palin sparks an equal amount of terror in the far left.   Those on the far left who would otherwise vote Nader, or not at all, are scared to death of the idea of Palin being a heartbeat away from (and in any case a big influence and tie breaking vote on) supreme court appointments. The biggest looser from the Palin pick is Ralph Nader. Now as stated earlier the far left is far less disciplined, so it's going to take them a little longer to come to terms with the reality of their options. But come November, those folks will realize that their agenda of civil liberties, ending the war and preserving a women's right to choose will be crushed should Palin ascend to the Presidency, and if the only option they have to prevent that is to vote for Obama, this time, they may just do it, even if Obama is distantly related to Dick Cheney.    As an aside I was amazed and embarrassed by folks who voted for Nader because Kerry is Bush's distant cousin, both sides share paranoia apparently and as evidenced by this video below, neither side has the monopoly on lack of discipline either.    In the important question of voting practicality vs. principle. In the reality of the two party system that we have (I wish it were better I wish it were different, but it's not, nor will it be by November, both candidates have the critical mass of people that Actually wants to vote for them, that it constitutes an insurmountable majority to third party candidates), the only answer I have is vote practical, and work hard for principles in between election cycles. The practical choice determines how hard the work for principles will be once someone wins the election. My advice my friends, find the most practical vote for your principles, for me, That is Obama/Biden.

 McCain threw a hail mary in his V.P. pick. He had to. Had he picked a safe, or expected or anything but outright shocking choice, this election would already be over. So for the choice of Sarah Palin? Well played sir, well played.  Now let's not confuse the hype over Sarah Palin for a surge in people wanting to vote for McCain, perhaps he has garnered some voters who would have otherwise stayed home, or would have shown up to vote Republican at the last minute, but the other side of that sword is that he sparked those who would have stayed home because Obama is not liberal enough, or would have voted Democrat at the last minute to cast their ballot.

     For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. And the equal but opposite reaction to the past 8 years will be an Obama Presidency.  
   Before they can regain control of the White House however, the Democrats need to gain control of the news cycles.
   Yesterday I was phone banking for Obama here in Boulder, County, Colorado, and one women I spoke with insisted that I get word to whoever I could that Obama should select and then announce that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will be his energy and environment czar. Not only would that be a good idea but according to this article based on this interview something that Arnold would be receptive to. Maybe this is in the works already. But since nothing will take the wind out of the Palin sail faster than the announcement that the other darling of the Republican party, the one that can't run for President but everyone secretly, (or less secretly) wishes could, became a key component of an Obama administration. Good idea or not (I happen to think Schwarzenegger would be great in this role) think of how many news cycles it will dominate.     So if this is in the works, the time to play this hand would be now Mr. Obama, I'm sure there are a few other aces up your sleeve but now is the time to play the Arnold card.

As  you are all aware aside from the Presidential contest, Senate races and all the congressional and other local races. There are 18 statewide ballot questions. Let's discuss these issues on this forum as well. This is a recycled post from early this summer on my blog,The Routt Report regarding the competing affirmative action measures. I wrote this back in July, and so far I'm sticking to it. I'll try not to be so long winded on the other measures but as you can imagine this is a little personal.

   For the past 30 years I've been a Black guy in America. When a person is born black, male, to a single mother, living in Harlem, at the lower end of the tax bracket, in 1978, well society didn't have very high expectations. Nonethless there I am floating in a pool at the condo that I own in Boulder, CO. Not to say that I am some pinnacle of success and prosperity, I asure you that is not the case, but if a stock beat market expectations by such a large margin, and still only cost $10 a share, well that firm would probably have an easy time raising capital. How did I beat the odds? I didn't, there was a wild card. Now there was luck and opportunity like in every life, along with setbacks and dissapointments. But the only factor of consequence was my mother. Sharon Coleman decided that the cycle of generational poverty ends with her. She succeeded where affirmative action and philonthropic organizations failed. Good parenting is the only effective cure to what ills not only the black community but every community that suffers from the disease of generational poverty. Programs like affirmative action which only treat the symptoms serve to distract us from the common struggles that transcend race and gender. Over time our heavily medicated malaise only deepens the infection. If you are born in a New York housing project or an Alabama trailer park , you have every important baramoter of success in common, and an equally bleak prognosis. 
  

 While affirmative action soothes the symptoms and gives the apperance of social health to those fortunate to view it from the elite and therefore distant vantage point, it does nothing to cure the disease at the site of infection. Poor America, rural and urban suffer from the same lack of educational opportunity that is perpetual, and therefore it defies logic that because one is Black and the other White that one should recieve preferrential college or employment when both are equally under-qualified.
  

This fall Colorado will have two competing ballot measures regarding affirmative action. I don't know which I intended to vote for, but if the langauge of the measure is appropriately neutral I will vote to end affirmative action in Colorado. I am not so naive as to think that I have never benefited from affirmative action or to believe that there are some proponents of ammendment 46 that are racist in their support. What is clear is that since the inception of affi