The Routt Report

And we're back!

   And we're back!

 

For the 5 or 6 people that read this blog and have forgotten that it even exists I suppose I owe you an explanation ...

 

As you may remember when I last posted about the State of the State Address of Governor Ritter, I was an undermployed used carsalesman, freelance musician and political busy body.  Well fast forward nearly 3 years and I am an underemployed used carsalesman, freelance musician and political busy body ... but there was an interim period of over-employment, a job that was exciting, educational and wholly incompatible with my blog.  From Febraury 2009 until April of 2011 I had the honor and privilege to serve as a Legislative Assistant to Representative Jared Polis in his Washington D.C. office.

I have spent my entire professional carear having jobs that required some kind of explanation, so for those of who you who are unware of what a Legislative Assistant is (or are just now learning that this is a "real job") here's a breif tutorial/civics lesson:

Putting aside whether or not our Federal government is "too big or too small" the reality is that today it is very complex and is involved in more lines of business, -not to mention the impacts of policy on lines of business the government is not in- than any person can understand on their own.  While our national legislative body was designed to solve this problem through delegating expertise to committees with the idea that the other members could rely on the expertise of committee members and could make marginal adjustements to policy in floor amendments, this system relied on a much smaller scope of government, with a much more homegenous set of practical concerns and social values.  

The Congress today of 535 members, 435 of which spend half their term running for re-election are confronted with complex issues and committe assignments frequently based more on historical precedent, constituency considerations and seniority than on the members personal expertise on the issues of committee jurisdiciton.  As result members need good information, technical information, information that even if they weren't busy raising money they would not be able learn in a timely enough fashion to make an informed vote.  So therefore two institutions have been established to provide the facts, Legislative Assistants and Lobbyists.  And because the funds dedicated to legislative staff is not even close to competitve with private sector compensation for equal skill sets, Legisaltive Staff rely on the expertise of lobbyists. 

Lobbyists are generally former legislative staffers who grew up and realized they had families to take care so they should probably endeavour to earn a living wage by advocating the interests of entities and industries where they have a deep roledex of staffers who currently work on these issues.  Lobbyists are ESSENTIAL to the work of Congress.  This industry has been the posterchild of political malfeasance.  Are there crooked lobbyits?  Of course, I've also heard of crooked used carsalesman and free-lance musicians.  But just like any industry most are professionals that do excellent work.  And if you think Congress makes bad choices now (as their 14% approval rating suggests that you do) I assure you the outcomes would be way worse if members where left entirely to their own devices or worse skill sets and knowledge base.

 

So back to Legislative Assistants, our job is to analzye policy that is before the House or Senate in our issue areas (mine where Financial Services, Housing, Marijuana, Taxes and Telecom to name a few highlights of a very long list).  Most staffers cover a wide portfolio of issues which they may or may not have some technical expertise in.  We analyze the policy with the help of lobbyist we trust, our fellow staffers on the committees of jurisdiction, factor in  our bosses district, the local and delegation politics and of key importance the politics on the hill for this that or other issue and try to distill all of this information so that for the 10-15 minutes we have to discuss policy with our bosses we can at best help them understand what they are voting on but from a practical perspective recommend how they should vote based on all of the above considerations.  The job of a Legislaitve Assistant goes beyond this description, in some ways that are and some that are not acceptable uses for the position ... both politcally and personally.  As my good friend once said, the best way to describe our job is "meanwhile". 

 

It's exciting work, it's ajob that needs to be done and it's a job that in the majority of cases is woefully underpaid.  Hill Staffers are no strangers to 14 hour work days.  These young people (at 33 I was old on the hill) are smart, passionate, in short truly exceptional people that work tirelessly in obscurity.  When some member of Congress reprimands their colleagues for  "not reading the bill" ... well its not their job to read the bill, it's staff's job to read, write and amend legislaiton.

 

Before I was a legislative assistant I actually had no idea this institution existed.  I now know that the Congress is actually four chambers, The House, The Senate and their respecitve staffs.  Congressional staff are under-appreciated in our culture.  Few people work as hard and despite their efforts can find themselves unemployed because of the caprice of voters or misteps of their boss.  Now that you know that behind the 535 faces you see in press conferences there are thousands of twenty-somethings ensuring the talking points are in order and the floor votes happen I hope you take a moment to write to your member of Congress' office and thank their staff.  And while you're at it let's lay off lobbyists.  It takes being on the inside, in the belly of beast to see this but I assure you; anything you think about Congress that is negative would be worse if not for the influence of people who actually have a practical understanding of the impacts of policy.  This is not what I used to think about lobbyits but now that I know better it is what I believe. 

 

So I'm back in Boulder, back to the "Good Life".  Not to say I didn't enjoy Washington because I did and like many things in life my memory of my time in D.C. is improving.  I have some very good freinds from that time in my life.  It was more education in 2 years than I got not only about politics but life in 30. I had the opppurtunity to spend time with family and friends that are family in every way that matters while I was living in the east coast.  But now that I'm back in my own home it's time to start focusing on "domestic issues".  I did write this post to preface the next one which is the exact opposite of domestic issues since I intended to express my support for City Council candidates but in my committement to "domestic issues" I did recently take the important first step in getting a puppy.  His name is Blago!

 

 

In usufruct to the living . . .

 The words of Thomas Jefferson may prove inappropriate  to wax nostalgic on the fate of a bar, a dive bar no less, but I feel the premiss "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living" if accepted as a guiding principle on the nature of society and progress, sets the stage on which the evolution of the Catacombs may be mourned, but not criticized 

   I loved the Catacombs. I loved the Catacombs of 6 years ago, a bar that in many ways had more in common with my parents generation than the watering holes in Boulder that my generation including myself finally removed too. The smoke filled basement full of fun seekers favoring abandon over prudence was as nostalgic of the post local prohibition time of the bars founding as it was the scenes in which me and my fellows learned those behaviors. The thing about the Catacombs that made it king among the few dive bars in our ever elite city was it's irony. The Catacombs was a place for a cheap beer in an expensive town. The Catacombs, was the trashiest bar, in the basement of the nicest hotel in town. And with every bit of irony intended, the Catacombs had the best service per dollar spent.

  And as our city of Boulder develops yet another sign of it's awkward growing phase, the reaction in the public is the same as the news that our newspaper is selling it's downtown home. I like many mourn the Catacombs, a place I haven't been in quite sometime, not because I want it in tact should I return but because of what this change is indicative of. The irony of the Catacombs is emblematic of the charm of Boulder, a character that is in fact slowly slipping away. Perhaps I'm "too young" or "haven't been in Boulder long enough" to lay a legitimate claim to a snapshot of the City's past. Perhaps its ridiculous to long for the "Good 'ole Days" of 6 years ago, and certainly only the lens of revisionism gives a clear view to logic of voluntarily returning to those days of hangovers ringing ears and bad habits. But what is sincere, if not misguided is longing for the bar and the Boulder that "I knew", that healthy mix of yuppies, hippies and rednecks that was my paradise while certainly another's hades. 

  And I must remember that as my haunts and my City have changed, I too have changed and woe be to me to be critical of the former, lest they are critical of the latter for if not by evolution how is one to measure the health of their mind and worth of their days? 

  It is not my place to decided what the Hotel Boulderado chooses to do with it's dive bar, nor is it my place to decide what a person does with their home, or community does with it's social fabric. Indeed the world belongs to the living generation, and while Jefferson in his letter to Madison was speaking to responsible personal and national debt as an analogy to the proper term of the endurance of the laws of man, I do see a correlation in the angst of the ever changing character of a City. 

  Shall we preserve the City in amber? And if so who's Elysium shall we choose? Circa 1978?, '84?, '96? I would choose 2002, and like the proponents of every year between 2008 and 1876 would find myself in a lonely and impotent minority scorned by a majority who can't believe anybody would prefer "that time" in Boulder  over their own preferred epoch. The natural state of a living being, which a City is,  is constant change and evolution.  While Jefferson would believe that some of the laws that have caused Boulder to be the City it is today, ought be repealed by sheer virtue that they have exceeded 19 years of age. Perhaps however he would be convinced that as a member of the living generation should I see fit to keep the band of open space, that is my prerogative as the rightful heir to the land that sustains me. I bet he would insist however that my generation seek to renew and amend those laws rather than just inherit them. 

  indeed the world belongs to the living, and a community is likewise the province of those present. It is appropriate to mourn loss, and to question the value and logic of change. However these passions must be tempered with an acknowledgement that change is a function of a healthy community. There is no requirement to love the new evolution, but the criticism should be on merits, not on principle that change itself is inherently bad. Perhaps the "new" Catacombs may become my new favorite bar, perhaps the City that Boulder will evolve to will be a better, more charming place, but what is certain is that change is inevitable and to fight it is only to be left behind. It is the better part of wisdom to embrace the future to have a hand in shaping it. This Jefferson would say is the responsibility of the living generation, to be stewards of the world we were bequeathed while in equal measure preparing for an unencumbered transfer to the will and desire of those who will inherit the earth from us. But he would warn us that too much energy spent longing for the past is akin to deferring responsibility to the deceased.

CHEERS!

And for the record and incase it wasn't clear somehow, I LOVE THE CATACOMBS!

and frankly Boulder could use a few more dive bars . . .

John and Johnson . . .

    "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 Gerard

President, 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 my previous offering, and events since then. My last post was a dance, being on two practical sides of similar ideological issues. I tried to appear 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 current personal 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.

Out on the "COrners"

When I introduce myself and give someone my card they often ask if it's a joke. I understand, I guess if you didn't know any better it would be kind of a surprise to learn that Wyoming has a symphony, and that this young very cool guy would somehow be a part of it, I mean I don't even wear glasses (I just walk around blind and have headaches instead), and then even if you could wrap your head around that, the idea that I'd be a used car salesman at a place called Smooth Motors, which in itself sounds like a joke is certainly worthy of getting a little more information. 

   . . .  Which of course is a  big mistake. To ask me, "What is it exactly that you do anyway?", frequently results in about 30 minutes that go kinda like this . . .

August 2008

  August 2008 was an amazing month. The annual trip to teach at Kinhaven Music School (which is among my favorite places in the world and the best place for a talented young musician to spend a summer) is as much a vacation as it is a great job. It's in many ways a homecoming as since I spend my summers there in High School, I literally grew up there in some very important ways. This year was particularly powerful in the context of the amount of personal discovery and self evaluation that arouse from spending time with both My Dad's family as well as a reunion with my Mom's family. I realize that calling these groups anything other than just "my family" is a little awkward, but I don't have any other way of making the distinction. And I do believe the distinction is important as it's these two parts that make me whole. Also I had the opportunity to represent Colorado's second congressional district at the Democratic National Convention! Enjoy these videos and you'll know a fair bit more about the author if The Routt Report. I have always been thankful for the diversity of experience that has comprised my life, though it is often difficult to explain. Hopefully this gives you some insight into why I think the way I do and perhaps gives this blog some context.

Cheers!

-Shawn