The Routt Report

We are the 15%!

 

Congressional approval rating is hard to really know.  Like all polling the data is subject to variables such as who is aksed? what was asked? who answered ... and why did they answer.

There are recent polls that put the approval rating of Congress as low as 9%.  However I would guess that it actually hoovers around 15%.  I use 15% primarily because it's a nice round number but I also base that on a premise that has recently occured to me.  Be it noted that I'm not sure I believe this premise nor do I think it a good excuse for elected leaders to punt leadership, however I offer this as a view of hope and eternal wisdom, not cynicissm.

 

I think there this probably a floor of approval for Congress at about 15% ... this floor is comprised of (hear me out):

1. 8.5%  Simple majority of regular primary voters (primary voters being about 17%)  

2. 6.5%  A combination of people who actually agree with the policies of the current Congress (they did pass patent reform and 3 trade agreements, for the people that care about those isssues above others the 112th Congress has been fantastic), and perhaps some people who may agree with the following premise:

Congressional inaction is by design and obligation ...

 

HEAR ME OUT!

Let's take a few steps back ...  The founding fathers where many things, visionaries, idealist, etc.  But they were also products of their times.  Wealthy elites in a world where it was not only acceptable but in many cases seen as divine right that the wealthy elite should rule over the populace (let alone women and slaves) for the populace's benefit.  It is not an accident that even in the most liberal and populist founding documents of their age, the franchise of government was limited to those who were wealthy, male, white and of the correct faith.

And though it has been the history of our republic that the franchise is expanded over time, that expansion has never been easily won or immediatley embraced by those already in the franchise.  Whether the voter suppression was overt (poll taxes etc.) or covert the systematic silencing of voices and end runs around their participation has been the rule not the exception.

The most sustained covert voter suppression on the Congressional level has been the re-districing process.  As districts become increasinly lopsided in favor of a party the result is only the members of the local majority party get to decide who represents them in Congress.  The minority party -and even the simple minority of the majority party are effectively silenced.  And since in the most gerrymandered districts the winner of the primary is the winner of the general election, many members of Congress are the wholly owned subsidary of not the unsympathetic corporate interests or lobby pools but rather the elite majority party activist who though are earnest as any indiviual in their policy beliefs, are hardly representative of a communities national view or practical needs.  Their world view is developed by and limited to about 15% and as result those people who are being represented are of course happy with the job Congress is doing.

But their world view is a very narrow world view.  And though the founding fathers were not particularly interested in an inclusive franchise, they were supremely interested in all those who were in the franchise having equal right to power.  Every foreseeable caution was taken to ensure that the voice of the Congress represented the complete voice of those in the franchise.  What they couldn't bring themselves to do unfortunately is compell participation by those in the franchise.  At the time it probably wasn't an issue but as the franchise increased combined with voter suppression efforts every step of the way, we now have a situation that the majority of those in the franchise are not participants in it.

So the Congress, representing only clean minority voices as opposed to the noisy majority voices as intended is working with clear mandates from a small class.  A small class that in itself is deeply divided.

Congress is by design supposed to take in the broad diverse view of the populace and distill it to find the policy that does have broad consensus.  However because of an emboldened minority in Congress both party's seeks to create policy that they think makes sense while coercing (or silencing) the minority into compliance.  

I offer as a premise that the failure of the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction is actually exactly what is supposed to happen in this context.  The Super Committee was tasked with a very big job. A job where there is no clear mandate from the divided 15% and no input from the remaining 85% of the franchise.  

Perhaps what we have been calling partisan gridlock is actually just a safety valve.  

 

hear me out ...

The current state of affairs is that Congress, designed to run on the input of all the disparate voices of the franchise, is now only being fueled by passionate minority voices.  As a result of lack of fuel (or bad fuel depending on your viewpoint) the engine just shuts itself off to protect itself from further damage.

I agree that this is not a time for inaction.  This concept is not intended to apologize for lack of leadership.  However ask yourself do you really want THIS Congress to do anything? Example, without doing a poll I would expect that a majority of those in the franchise i.e. registered voters of any party affiliation over the age of 18 but still breathing, would be in favor of Congress passing a federal budget. However they haven't done so in quite awhile.  Why?  Because while there is clear directive from the extreme left and right there is no voice of the center.  Members of Congress are supporting the ideology of the small electorate, not distilling the voice of all people to find some small area of consensus to move forward with.  Since the fuel is rancid the engine shuts itself down.

I argue that if primary voting regardless of party reached a majority of active voters, the candidates coming out of primaries would be more moderate, representing (or better said beholden to) a wider swath of ideas.  The general election between two moderates would result in the most moderate (or rather most broadly beholden) candidate winnig.

Granted this would yield the kind of politicians many people think they don't want ... unprincipiled, compromsing at every turn, placing expediency over virtue flip-floppers.  You know just like now like we have now.  

But the incentive model for compromise will have fundamentally changed. 

Our national legislative body, (not unlike our local elected body in Boulder with our all at-large, minority electorate for City Council) in it's current form is incredibly susceptible to the influence of powerful minority interests.  With a small zelaous, ideologically charged electorate it is very easy for those with influence to retain and expand their influence.  

With a large electorate elected officials must at best find and hold themselves to what few areas of broad consensus exist or at worst avoid being too far into any particular ideological corner.  It is easy to point fingers at corporate money, lobbying and special interest groups as the reason Congress is ineffective however at best those are only rationale for why Congress does things that individuals disagree with.

I offer that the root of the problem is that a small electorate is like diesel being poured into a Twin Turbo Gasoline engine.  

We have a population that is more moderate than the electorate and an electorate that is more moderate than the much smaller primary electorate.  Add to this (and I argue as result of this) we have a Congress that believes it's job is to create and sell its policy as opposed to distilling the combined wisdom of the governened and turning the limited consensus into policy. 

Therefore our founding father's have given us a collective time out.

The House of Representatives was designed to be the virtue of the populace and the Senate a further distillation to ensure only policy that has incredibly broad consensus can become national law.  Without proper fuel the engine SHOULD cease to run.  

This is granted a bit of tough love.  Refueling our legislative engine can only come from increasing participation in primaries to levels equal to general elections (and increasing that as well to much higher levels) then accepting  that the noise of the masses is better than quite of the minority.  We have to accept that within the noise is truth.  As individuals it does not require setting aside your ideology or bias but it does require making that voice heard while respecting the right of others to disagree.  

 

And this may be the hardest part but it also requires allowing politicians to be exactly that. Politicians!

Activist and Politicians serve different and important roles in our public discourse and while it is essential that activist hold fast to their views it is equally important the politicians have a much more flexible worldview that balances passion and pragmatism. It's not to say politicians should not have ideals or agendas, but it is to say that those ideals and agendas should only come to fruition as the result of their wisdom being made plain to their colleagues rather than the accident of their party having a majority in Congress at the time.

Like a well designed modern engine our centuries old Congress has a safety valve.  Without proper fuel Congress is actually limited to only must-do emergency policy ... you know things that have broad consensus such as not going into national default.  If you look at what the past few Congress have actually accomplished and compare those things to the public opinion polling of the time you see that very little was done, most of which also enjoyed at least simple majority public support at the time.  

Congress does not know enough to determine the best way to reduce the defict among many other things because the electorate has not made its full voice heard.  It's not that we don't have serious problems that demand bold and solutions in a timely fashion. It's that Unfortunately our legislative engine was not designed that way. Our engine was designed to run on the full voice of those in the franchise ... or not at all.  Congress is not solely responsible for our nation's problems, whether they be economic, environmental or otherwise, we are all in our own way complicit and in our own ways empowered to fix them.  

The eternal wisdom of our founding fathers is that the ability of any ideology to hold too much power is to be avoided.  Even if that group is simply a vocal minority that has power due to the apathy of the rest of the franchise it is still dangerous.  And when the power rest in the hands of those drunk with ideology the engine will stall until it can be regained by a sober hand.

And right now the 15% is as drunk as a frat boy on his 21st birthday.  

Sobriety can only be returned by the 85% and that's simply going to take awhile.

Is Congress broken? Well perhaps not broken but it is in SAFE mode, and though we would be better off if it was functioning properly this is still better than if our situation was made worse by a very active but broken Congress.  

     I've yet to see a toddler think that their time out was well timed, however I do see the wisdom of our founding fathers  telling our current political class that it's time for them to sit in corner and think about what they have done.  

Here's some fun additional reading to help you draw your own conclusions:

 

Congressional Approval rating, click here 

Primary Voting turnout, click here

And a member of Congress who may actually agree with this premise ... click here

2011 elections

 

It's taken me a few weeks to put pen to paper ... or rather finger to keyboard because to the extent elections are a team sport, my team got clobbered!  

With the one bright spot for "my agenda" being in Routt County where voters in Steamboat Springs and Routt County voted in favor of staying the course with their medical marijauana programs.  Aside from that it was defeat after defeat after defeat for the things I care about.

First allow me to say the following which will be enough whining to get you wasted off of my sour grapes:

I don't know if folks like "Team Ft. Collins" ( a group of "civic-minded" beer producers who bankrolled the effort to remove medical marijuana centers from Ft. Collins) and PLAN/Sierra, the majority (read only) organized political party in Boulder's nominally non-partisan City elections inteneded to ply their case in 2011 because this was their best electorate.  Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that thier timing was just a stroke of luck by folks who believe in what they do and just got lucky. But what is clear is that if you are trying to win a battle of (pick your word, local conservatism, status quo, re-affirmation of the claims of those who already have the power) any political strategist will tell you this is accomplished by first picking your electorate and then ensuring that electorate is small and conservative.  

Statistically the smallest and most conservative electorate is the odd number year before a presidential election. Add to that, this year was a bonus for non-intentional voter suppresion because our election day with an all mail-in ballot was a week earlier than the calendar election day.  

I don't accuse the victors of this year's election of manipulating odds to their advantage any more than I accuse the loosers for failing to factor in the electorate when mounting campaigns that in hindsight were doomed. I just point out that the deck was heavily stacked for the proponents of the winners to win and the proponents of the loosers to loose not based on the merits of their campaigns but due to the nature of the electorate.

There is an elitist view that the "off-year" (that there is even such a term as "off-year" I think strengthens my argument) electorates deserve their over-sized influence because they are the dedicated and informed voter.   Those who make that argument sometimes also go as far to say that this electorate has the largest stake in the outcomes ... and with that part of the argument I tend to agree.

However,

This eliteist view is ademocratic and lends itself to elections that are based on misinformation.  We already have a problem where there is a lack of interest in local issues.  As a Juilliard grad and former professional classical musician who now fools around in politics I am perfectly aware that the thing that orchestral concert audiences and off-year election electorates have in common is that they are a wierd minority.  It is also obvious that the downfall of both classical music and local politics is their exclusivity.  I believe that an election is a mirror in which we can look at society and anytime you have participation of less than 100% then your image is distorted by the same percentage of those who did not vote. In 2011 that distortion is about 60%.

The result on the local and national level is government that works well for a small group of people i.e. the simple majority of the minority of people who participate and for everyone else ... well it's a crapshoot.

Sure perhpas the majority of people who don't vote in municipal elections are just so happy with the status-quo that they can't even pause their celebration long enough to cast a ballot to say so. I would believe that if when asked non-voters would say that. Non-voters are very forthcoming in their rationale for not participating in my experience, but I've never heard that complete and utter satisifaction with the status-quo as the reason.

So in an off-year, small conservative electorate a nominal tax increase to fund our public schools went down in flames, the residents of Ft. Collins banished medical marijuana centers from their City and in Boulder the entrenched political establishment had a landslide in the council election.  

Voters in Ft. Collins have simply been duped.  When you have local elections where there are few resources to get good information it is easy to see how opponents of Colorado's medical marijuana program could be convinced that by eliminating medical marijuana centers they would be eliminating medical marijuana in their community. Of course the reality is that while the heavily regulated medical marijuana centers go away, the demand for marijuana won't change at all.  As a result expect to see the re-establishment of the black market for marijuana in Ft. Collins as well as a surge in home grows which are still protected under the state constitution. Not to mention all the driving to Boulder and Denver of Ft. Collins residents to buy legal medical marijuana from licesened centers which is bad for the carbon footprint ... but of course even a climate hawk like myself must surely see the value of sacrificing some vehicle miles traveled for the sake of the children ... who can now go back to buying their marijuana from a local resurgent black market instead of being turned away by licesned centers.

 

Speaking of being a climtate hawk ... as I mentioned before I am one and environmentally concerned Boulder narrowly approved a measure that I believe is actually a step backwards disguised as a step forward in passing a meausure that allows Boulder to form a municipal utility.  As I have said in earlier posts I was not opposed to this because I don't think the City could run a utility.  I opposed it because I don't believe the City ever will run its electric utility.  

 

Morever this is sacrificing the war to win a battle.  Climate change is a global problem and as much as I would love for the world to follow Boulder's example in most things thats simply not reality. In order to effect the greatest change the fastest we need to be working regionally, nationally and globaly instead of pulling up our drawbridge.  Instead of the debate being about renewable energy the debate became about just about everything else ... corporate america, money in elections, conservative vs. liberal ...

Well here is a right-wing conservative heralding the renewable energy portfolio of that evil corporation Xcel energy in a twitter posting yesterday:

 

MarkUdall Mark Udall 

With 55.6% of its energy from #wind, #Colorado's @XcelEnergy is the new world-record holder for most #windpower. bit.ly/sisfHU

17 Nov  Unfavorite  Undo Retweet  Reply

 Retweeted by SLC_CO

 

Oh oops! That's liberal, total climate hawk (but pragmatic enough to understand how solutions actually work) Colorado Senator Mark Udall talking about how the corporation Boulder voters narrowly banished for "not producing enough renewable energy" is the WORLD"S LARGEST PRODUCER OF WIND POWER. 

Look I'm all for reform and punishing those who do the wrong thing, the problem with 2B and 2C was that this was never about the merits of Xcel it was a proxy war about corporate vs. local power.  And I agree with the sentitment however Xcel energy has tremendous regional influence on people's energy use choices.  Unless indiviuals everywhere, not just Boulder start making better choices what we do locally won't much matter.  It would be great if the passage of 2B and 2C start a nationwide move towards micro-generation, smart energy brokerage and increased adoption of renewable energy.

 

But with what capital? What infrastructure?  Xcel energy is a corporation, a large one and the last lesson we should be teaching corporate America is that if you dare be the leader in what we want we will punish you.  My interest is the maximum amount of renewable energy on the grid in the shortest amount of time.  2B and 2C may just yet achieve that goal and I hope that it does and I'm proven wrong. But for now it seems that this idea was not unwise, it was just pennywise.

 

And finally the council election. What is clear is that PLAN/Sierra have the superior ground game and for that they deserve to win the election and they did walking away. I just wonder if this built-in advantage could sustain a larger electorate.  I own that my choices for candidates where not the most-likely Boulder City Council winners and I'm not surprised by the outcome except for one, Dan King.

 

Really? the guy that owns a zero-waste hotel is not environmentally active enough to win a seat on Boulder City Council?  Is the idea of running a business and creating jobs that awful?

The answer is yes if you were to only poll the wierdos like myself who vote in off year elections. Though Boulder debates when viewed from outside the City Limits appear to be the struggle between liberal and liberaller ... If you really wanted to make an analogy that someone outside Boulder could understand, PLAN/Sierra is the organized, disciplined conservative party and "everyone else" is the disorganized progressives who spend so much time trying to determine good policy they forget factor in good politics and as a reuslt simply cannot win an election. This situation is exacerbated by the soft voter suppresion of off-year elections.

I don't think PLAN/Sierra are evil political masterminds nor do I think they are that wrong or wrong that often.  In fact my fist entree into Boulder politics was through PLAN when I met Lisa Morzel and Pat Shanks at a gargage sale, I consider them both friends and I've been to parties at both of their houses.  I shared a flight to New York with Ben Bender once and  we had a great chat. The issue is that I have finally come to determine that PLAN/Sierra fundamentally believe that Boulder's best days are behind it and thefore recommend a back to the future strategy.  It is my view after spending considerable time in both camps that it is the business and recreational community that are the true progressives.  These are the people that are actually proposing and supporting policy that will increase diveristy and livability in our community.  I realize this is counter-intutitve.  I understand that it most places the Chamber of Commerce run everything with a iron-conservative fist.  

But this is Boulder! And Boulder is wierd so it would only make perfect sense that in Boulder it is the Chamber of Commerce that is the progressive group with no political power.

 

What is hearting is that in the weeks leading up to the election this odd situation was starting to be discussed openly. And this discussion seems to be sustained.  I am glad to see so much talk of election reform in the City.  I happen to agree with those who think that even year elections, the election of council in representative districts instead of all at-large and the direct election of the Mayor would result in city leadership that reflects more accuratelly the direction Boulderites would support were they paying attention.  

Reformers in Boulder have one additional challenge.  Life in Boulder is pretty awesome.  Much like the president has had to defend the stimulus package with "it could've been worse" which though true is hard to quantify, Boulder's reformers have to hang their hat on "it could be a lot better"  again true, but hard to quantify.  For this reason I think moving the election to an even year is the most critical reform.  Since it will be nigh impossible to convince the small conservative off-year electorate that reform would be better when its clearly contrary to their interests, the only chance reform has is by chosing an electorate that reform would actually benefit, the larger voting bloc.

Previous attempts at election reform failed because of they tried to convince those who benefit from the status-quo to look past their interest towards the greater good, a fool's errand I don't care where you are.  Politics in Boulder are the same as they are in any small city, those who have the power have no incentive to yeild it others.  Previous election reform measures failed becasue they were on off-year ballots.  The champions of election reform have the best chance in four years next year.  A ballot measure to create representative districts or move municipal elections to even years has it's best shot at passing in 2012.  I would also think that those who oppose such reforms should want to see it on a 2012 ballot as well.  If reform failed on a 2012 ballot that would give the city's political establishment the greatest mandate to stay the course.  

Living outside of Boulder for a few years and coming back gives one some great perspective on the place. Boulder is a great place, but it is far from the sustainable, environmentally responsible, intellectually diverse and embracing community that it could be or one can be lulled into thinking it is if you don't leave town enough.  I believe Boulder can walk its talk and that doing so wouldn't even be that hard but it will require not a revoultion, but something more difficult to achieve, a minor course correction, something that I don't believe that the current political establishment of the city is capable of unfortunately.   

Lesson learned ... or rather affirmed

   I take far too many life lessons from popular culture.  Perhaps its because most people's lives are so consumed by pop-culture that lessons from high art and literature seem to be more valid.  And perhaps for the same reason, as a result of a life spent with Mozart, More and Smith that I find the wisdom in Rock, Mewes and Smith.  

    -The particular wisdom to which I refer is of Chris Rock, Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith with whom I'm Sure Wolfgang Mozart, Thomas More and Adam Smith would agree comes from a scene in Dogma in which Chris Rock tries to explain to Jay and Silent Bob why it's better to have ideas than beliefs.  The salient point is that beliefs are to hard to change.  The whole point of belief is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary it its still true.

As a result of receiving this wisdom I have a very high barrier for beliefs and have very few of them ... though its obvious to anyone that I more than make up for that with ideas which I think are true with a near religious fervor ... which I can then easily abandon when evidence proves me wrong (and hopefully before anyone notices that I was wrong).  

I think it's important to have ideas but I believe its important to be right when the ability to be right is made available -especially when the question is on one of your beliefs.

 

I had the opportunity to test one of my core political beliefs.  After a two year experiment I am relieved to have my belief that local government is way more important than national government confirmed.  My belief in intellectual honesty helped confirm this belief because since I was concerned that my blind faith in my premise may leave me unable to see how wrong it was the evidence had to be overwhelming before I could accept this simple truth:  

In order for Washington D.C. to wipe it's ass it needs to be agreed to by 218 members of the House of Representatives, 60 members of the Senate, signed by the president and found constitutinal by 5 judges. 

 

the result is that well ... well at least you can't smell the swamp anymore ...

 

Though I went to Washington with substantial evidence that what happens at 1777 Broadway has much more impact on the lives of people living in Boulder and the events at 200 East Colfax more relevant to the happines of Coloradan's than the kabuki theater located on First Street NE. It was however the impotence of the federal government that finally opened my eyes to the truth I already knew. 

The drama of Washington has captivated the attentions of American's led into this folly by news media.  If you're job is to sell nationallized marketing campaigns designed by your "sponsors" its only "consistent" that you spend what little time you have left for actual reporting be tailiored to the largest audience (thus capitlizing on redundant costs).  Add to that the consolidation of news media (turns out they weren't wrong about thinking about the bottom line the whole time ...oops!) there is very little coverage of our General Assemblies and City Councils.  

Too bad because if you want the stop lights to work, the water to flow and the trash to go away, its downtown, not D.C. where those decisions are made. But more importantly if you want the stoplights to be solar powered, the water to be floridated  (or not) or the trash to be recylced the only place you actually have a voice is at City Hall.

 

Local government is where good things can happen and bad things end (or vice versa) and FAST! I just got of the phone with someone who had a great idea.  It's an idea already in practice by Boulder County though he was unawre of it but the basis of the call was the feasibility of such an idea being enacted by Congress. Aside from this very idea already being in place here I then explained that with the federal government currently on a continuing resolution through Novemeber.  Which means something (a budget another continuing resolution deal) must be done by then.  Following which there will be the super committee report ... Then it's January of a presidential election year.

 In this context the idea could be to give orphans puppies that bark jesus; a bill introduced now will not see the light of day until the 113th Congress (assuming the person who introduced it is re-elected).  Policy does not move through Congress based on merit alone.  Being a good idea is way less important than say ... keeping the federal government open which seems to be an increasingly diffuclt -though constitutionally mandated task for the 112th Congress.

 

Meanwhile ...

Boulder Voters could vote to create a municipal eletric utility.  Whether you're for it or against one must be impressed with how quickly local governments can move.  Which is why it puzzles me that so few people care about local government.  It's not glamorous, the characters are infreuntly charming or attractive and the prodcution values are clearly done on a modest budget.  But rest assured this is NOT Kabuki theater.  The events that actually shape your daily life, no matter where you live are being decided ... right now! BY YOUR NEIGHBOR! (unless you live in Washington D.C. of course in which case you are actually stuck with Congress, hope that works out for you ...).

 This fall municipal governments across the country will be holding elections for councils, mayors, ballot questions ranging from social issues to taxation.  All of these questions being asked in what folks in politics without a hint or irony call an "odd number year" which many local charters compell or local leaders request, in both cases cynically because odd election years are gauranteed to have the lowest voter turnonout of the four year presidential election cycle.  Thus gauranteeing that the few politically empowered and savvy can have their way with the ballot box with self-limited noise from the plebes  occasinonal voters.  Being an occasional voter (i.e. votes religiously in presidential or even number years) is like being a "Christmas Catholic" and regular voters view occasional voters with the same open-arm comtept that devout believers reserve for their poser bretheren.  

This contempt is so great that our Secretary of State is requiring county clerks to not send ballots to people who didn't vote in 2010.  Christmas voters be damned! Flagrant voter surpression is bad, institutional voter supression worse.

 

As this pertains to Boulder, our Charter mandated voter supression of "odd year elections" which an elected official actually said "is better because people can focus on local issuses without clutter of national issues" will play heavily into the hands of the status-quo.  I would agree with the above statement if it came with the voter turnout of national elections but unfortunately that will not be the case.  And once again the most important decisions that take place in the public sphere with the greatest level of personal impact will be decided by a radical, righteous and entitled minority.  For the sake of intellectual honesty I suppose I would be less offended (or to give them the benefit of the doubt) unable to see this inherent flaw in our so called democracry if I were in the majority of the political minority.  However it is in the minority of the ruling class where the abuses of the ruling class become the most apparent and exacerbating. 

My Clarinet professor at Juilliard once said "the difference between a rich musician and a poor musician is a poor musician needs to practice".  Without going into the myriad implications of this statement about quality of life, work ethic and bandwith which I will let you ponder for yourself, this statement in which I do believe has a political implication as well. Just because an individual has spent a lot of time on an interest does not mean they are right about it. The best government benefits from the collective wisdom of the governend moderated by elected representatives. Having spent years away, I believe Boulder is a fantastic place to live.  Given our status-quo or someone else's future I would choose stagnation everytime.  These however are not the options.

Our options are to embrace the future and remain a vibrant exciting city or wallow in the swamp of stagnation as the world -and our ability to keep our bubble inflated- pass us by.  

I say all that to say this ...  Tired of Congress? Fed up with the Fed? Teach them a lesson, this fall ignore them! and focus your attentions on your local races.  Even if at then end you still don't care about local government (which I say you do at your own peril), nothing will terriffy national lawmakers and the political establishment at all levels more than high voter turnout in an odd number year.  

 

Politicians, like puppies and small children frequently mean well, and try to test boundaries but if you don't want them to go too far you need to make it clear you're actually watching.  Voting in an odd year is to politicians as being called by their full name is to a 5 year old who's hand is moving slowly towards the cookie jar.   

State of the State

 These are historic and somber times. And in the context of the historic occasion of the leaders of both chambers of the General Assembly being Black, and a state, national and global economic recession of yet unknown depth, in his address Colorado's Governor spoke to our legislative body in a specifically state-centric if not understated tone.

   Public officials do not get to choose how historic, or how difficult their term of office will be on the outset, but it is their choices once they take office that determine how history will view them in the long term. Senator Groff, and Representative Carroll have admirably set aside the revelry in their historic charges in favor of quickly attending to the shared challenges of our state. With a budget shortfall that is conservatively estimated at 600 million dollars and will likely be proven to be significantly larger, both the speaker and the president have demonstrated leadership in character, and as this legislative session begins they will have the opportunity to demonstrate leadership through policy.

  Governor Ritter made reform the theme of his speech. History and current events do not discount the continuation of the structural challenges our state government has, flaws  that are at once exacerbated by downturns and the cause of the undue severity of them. Bill Ritter's pledges to reform education and TABOR where bold pieces of rhetoric in the context of a fiscally constrained state that will be reducing it's expenditures by at least 10%. In stating "We need to address TABOR which puts a straight jacket on state government preventing the ability to have rational need based budgets" (I'm paraphrasing) the Governor struck a chord that has resonated with municipal Governments border to border, most notably and recently with the leadership of the City of Colorado Springs. I will state here that while I fully support the idea of taxes being approved by the voters, however there are provisions of TABOR that independently and in concert with other parts of our state's constitution that are awkward at best, prevent our elected leaders from reacting to challenges or capitalizing on opportunities in the middle and at the very worst provide a mechanism for the shady fiscal practices TABOR meant to address, (Fund transfers anybody?).  TABOR in the guise of soothing the distrust of our legislature has in its own way caused fiscal inefficiency and relieved our electorate of the personal responsibility of electing thoughtful representatives. It may have seemed like a good idea to tie the hands of our representatives but the better part of wisdom, and the understanding of the principles of diminished responsibility tell us that for the sake of a more effective state house and a more informed electorate it would benefit the State of Colorado for our elected officials to have more control (responsibility) in creating our budget, which as the Governor stated in his remarks should be viewed as a moral document, a statement of the values we elected these people to forward and protect. Further with the knowledge of increased ability to do harm, the electorate will have the increased responsibility to elect good representatives. In a state that is governed by the law of man, it is reckless to punt fiscal responsibility to the charge of policy on lifeless, unthinking, inflexible paper. 

  The choices are either major reforms of TABOR or an endless line of Referendum "C"'s  and County "1A's". The good provisions of TABOR deserve to be retained and hopefully the general assembly will respond to the Governor's charge to begin this work in a bipartisan way.

  There was optimism in the Governor's  address, partly because leadership demands it, but also because there is good news in Colorado. We have a lower unemployment rate than most of the nation, (the under-employment story is VERY different and one can easily argue, as I would that that is worse). Our investments in energy of all types both renewable and traditional have yielded returns, (granted returns offset by declines in other employment sectors). Well maybe "good news" is a strong word in practical terms, however, the Governor renewed his commitment to educational reform. While we do have one the nations most educated workforces, that level of expertise is not majority homegrown. It is not enough to import skilled labor as we cannot always count on costal exodus, and further with our current infrastructure problems from transportation to water, relying on constant in-migration is as derelict to Colorado's children as it is irresponsible to her natural resources. We can and must address transportation, congestion and water rights and storage, but on the other hand we must make Colorado's workforce a competitive and homegrown workforce. The economic vitality as well as the social fabric of our state is dependent on being able to retain the lion share of our graduates. It is only through the life labor of future generations that our investments in education are repaid, and it is only through continuity that the values that make Colorado the best state in the Union, the values of environmental stewardship, the love and preservation of the lands that sustains us, and the deep spirit of community and civic pride, in both rural and urban Colorado that are strongest when transfered organically through generations from childhood, that build the foundation for Colorado's future. While I myself am not a native born son, I have  developed a great love for my adopted state. The spirit of Colorado is too precious to risk that all who come from without her borders can in such short time recognize and celebrate the prize that is Colorado. The only security we have is to educate Colorado's children and provide for economic growth so that the tools they learn may be applied to provide for their families and their children. If we can meet the challenges of the 21st century economy we can ensure that Colorado of the 22nd century will continue to be the ideal of the American way of life, and that our mountains, our plains, our City's and Town's will remain recognizable in both body and spirit.

  The Governor quoted a Japanese leader when he stated that "it is the role of government to ensure the transfer of the world from our ancestors to our children" not entirely different from the sentiment of Thomas Jefferson when he said that the world belongs to the living in that while we honor the past it is important that we prepare constantly for a future that will have unknown challenges and opportunities. In that context however we must not forget the urgency of now. May we all give our support to Governor Ritter and Colorado's General Assembly as they for the next 120 days work to lay the foundation for the State we will call home for the years and decades to come.

"TubeGate" and the CD4 Race

 Like that one time I almost got myself and several of my closest friends expelled from Juilliard . . .  My predilection for being in seemingly benign circumstances with a video camera has again landed my in the center of a controversy of hearsay that could have been easily avoided had anyone bothered to actually watch the tape for content. 

  

 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, NONE

2. These types of "controversies" make both parties look bad

3. 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 netflixx list.

SD 18, nothing to do with South Dakota

Nothing is worse than losing to the learning curve. The iPhone typad app, apparently does not auto-save. I know that now. Hopefully this new entry will prove better than the one just lost to operator error. Fortunately that is the worst thing that happenend to me today. Minor in comparison to what can be lost to the learning curve of out of town drivers adjusting to VERY local traffic patterns.

Speaking of out of towners, Boulder is host for the Internationl Downtown Assocation Conference. As a member of the Downtown Managment Commission, I attended the reception. I had the pleasure of speaking with civic leaders from Anchorage, Harlem, Windsor ON and others. While all where on message as representatives and champions of their communities, their sincere admiration for Boulder's Downtown, only reminds that nothing makes you more aware of the wonders of the place you call home than guests. I also talked to locals about the state of city government which only reminds of the challenges of good housekeeping.

Boulder is not without it's problems, Colorado likewise, and it's difficult to determine if during election cycles the negativity is a function of the seriousness of our problems, or is this panic the reason we have so few? Boulder holds herself to a sometimes impossibly high standard, where if we were to simply view our success in context of a city instead of a country club, perhaps we would not be a superior city.

I question if the relentless pursuit of perfection is actually the inefficiency that prevents us from having it, nonetheless we are in an election cycle and therefore it is time to incite panic.

The state senate debate between Cindy Carlisle and Rollie Heath was typical in being heavy in laying out problems, light in solutions. It was also typical in that if you hadn't already decided which candidate to support in this primary you probably came away still undecided as both candidates are clearly qualified, and have the same basic political philosophy. It was also typical in that no one in the audience was there for any reason but to support the candidate they had chosen quite some time ago. The hardest thing in a local election is making people aware that there is one. So as typical the sparse audience was full of supporters.

I support Cindy Carlisle. A democratic primary, particulalry in Boulder County is about who can out left the other. Cindy clearly wins that contest. But while I do admire Rollie's pragmatism, and he is probabaly closer to my political philosophy but, when I engage the context of how our State House actually works, When I factor the width of the political spectrum at the Capitol, and when I account for the fact that as I'm generally personally to the right of most of Boulder, when I objectively consider who would be the most reliable representative of the values of SD18, it is pretty clear that Cindy Carlisle is the superior candidate to represent famously, and in the context of State politics, importantly liberal Boulder. Cindy will get my support and vote.

But there is one other issue. The following certainly influenced my decision in this race as well as CD2, but I discuss here to inform, not to sway.

Boulder county is a for all intensive purposes a Uni-party county. Republicans rarely run and when they do they loose in a landslide. This is dangerous for democracy as well as the democratic party. Just because the conservative mindset is the minority does not mean they do not deserve representation. Further the "can't loose" mindset of the Democrats has created a system of spoils. The answer to potential candidates who would consider running for office is "wait your turn". Thankfully Cindy with political capital and Jared Polis with . . . ahem, capital capital where able to challenge this system and save us from the politics of usual. I do believe that Cindy Carlisile and Jared Polis have the strongest platforms in their respective races. But I also was going to vote for them anyway because this entitlement cannot be tolerated from democrats either.

Apparently absolute power does corrupt absolutlely and the once hopeful progressive Boulder County Democratic machine is slowly becoming the Republican party it replaced. The end game of the spoils system is mediocrity that opens a void for the opposition. While I don't know if a resurgent Boulder County Republican party would be the worst thing in the world, I rather think it would be a good thing for both the city and the county, I do know that a vote for Cindy and Jared would be an important first step in getting our democratic house in order. Housekeeping is hard work, in this election we have two brooms, let's use them.