The Routt Report

The Prius Problem

  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 of 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, But we can cure the uncertainty that is plaguing our retailers in some short measure and perhaps save their 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.

  

Where credit is due . . .

 Boulder County Clerk and Recorder did the right thing. This is not to give Hillary Hall a pass on the delay in election results. This is not to say that the public ought to forget that she won this job by crucifying Linda Salas, a fellow Democrat for exactly the same actions while she served as the County Party Chair. But by making a public statement and owning her responsibility she has done the right thing. This demonstration of courage and accountability is all to rare from those holding public office and for this Hillary Hall is to be commended.

  As for the considerable delay in the election results, it is certainly regrettable, those responsible deserve scrutiny, and the consequences. However it is certainly premature to lay the blame solely on the County Clerk. I believe when the audit is complete it will show that the errors that caused the delay stem from many sources. It is likely that from the County staff to the voting machine vendors there will be plenty of culpability to go around and everyone involved will get their fair share. With that in mind given the situation that was known at the time the County Clerk did her job by favoring accuracy over  speed. The mistake was not the choice in the heat of battle, but Hillary Hall's own words in her campaign against Linda Salas are an unfortunate but earned liability.

  The lessons learned here are that for starters we have a serious endemic problem with how we run our elections in Boulder Countyand our struggles here certainly call into question the reliability and accuracy of the counties state and nationwide that use similar voting machines. Within the temptation to vilify Boulder County for the delay, the better part of wisdom does beg the question, did the other jurisdictions have superior staffing or did they not recognize or worse choose to ignore the same problems that Hillary Hall corrected? We also learned that it is unwise to turn a knee-jerk  reaction into a campaign platform. It is difficult to truly know what a job is until you  are actually doing it. Aside from running elections County Clerks spend most of their time filing title deeds and issuing license plates. For what it is worth, in the 2006 primary I voted to retain Linda Salas.

 I respected and was frankly surprised by the unusual spirit of democracy that was evidenced by a primary election against an incumbent. To often political party's "let it ride" with their incumbent knowing full well that the city, county, state, or nation would be better served with "anybody but". And if as party chair you recognize that your party's best chance to retain a seat is to run yourself, I would even argue that it is then your responsibility to do so. With that in mind, in lopsided Democratic Boulder County Linda Salas was in no danger of loosing a general election, and aside from the 2004 election I thought she was doing a fairly good job. As a car salesman I have frequent interactions with the DMV for example and as far as DMV's go, I thought Linda Salas was doing a fine job and saw no compelling reason to fire her.
 

  So from the outcome of this election I hope that we have learned that we should offer equal amounts of patience as criticism to our elected leaders as became apparent in this case a knee-jerk reaction to replace leadership yielded exactly the same results. Had we exercised prudence rather than passion perhaps we would have figured out what actually happened in 2004. Let's give Hillary Hall a chance to fix this problem.

And while we offer Hillary Hall time and scrutiny in equal measure I think we also owe Linda Salas a heart felt apology.

I'm either a romantic or a damn fool . . .

   Whenever I'm in Casper for a symphony concert, (yes I realize that from the first sentence I have betrayed my many disconnects from most of society and thereby discredited this post before it even begins) I like to have breakfast at this one dinner with a great breakfast special. It's one of those archetype establishments, just off the rail yards where young parents drink soda with breakfast and sit in the smoking section with their children. Where the tattoed waitstaff serve bacon and eggs to the parolee waiting for a ride to court, the unemployed waiting for their next big break, and the Juilliard grad waiting for his orange juice. This is a crossroad that doesn't exist in Boulder, Colorado, and existed only as romantic idea to the boy who grew up in Queens Village, New York who longed to gain a better understanding of this diverse nation.

    From the breadth of my experience what I have learned is that the folks in this resturant have more in common with the people I know in my otherwise elite proffesional life and the people I grew up with than any of those groups will ever know or admit. Yet because of assumptions confirmed by geographic but more importantly ideological distances, precious little flows between these distinct and similar worlds. The important differences are meerly semantics and scale. So while most people of the "blogging" class choose a coffe shop for their musing, I prefer the platte river diner in Casper, Wyoming. 

  

   One day a year however the apparent competing values are exchanged via a vote of the people. This is the opportunity for society to look in the mirror and truly see itself. However like the compulsive dieter, the denial of the image is at once a result of the distortion that we know but can't define, as the unwillingness to accept the truth. 

   As in our personal lives, we can only address what we know. Society in the same way is the only entity that truley knows itself. While any increase in voter turnout is to be applauded, it is important to pause the celebration breifly to confront the fact that if our democracy was a student in any public middle school, the 64% turnout would earn an F on the final exam of election day. Any percentage point below 100 is by definition a distortion of the image of society. With a historic 64% of opinions recorded, we lack the input of 34%. What do those people know that we don't? What mistakes will we make without their insight? How can politicians know what's best for society when society doesn't know itself? 

   The most troubling statements I heard from people as the results of this election came in was the shock by the intellectual elite that I live with, that our nation could elect a black man with such decisive margins. How can anyone be surprised? Is it possible that those who pride themselves the most with an enlightened lifestyle are actually woefully ignorant of the good nature of people who have less economic and academic means? Has the intellectual class proven it does not know what the majority has known all along? Perhaps this is our greatest political problem.

  

   I was not surprised. I have always observed that more people than not live without bias. More people than not, if given the opportunity prove themselves to be selfless. More people than not are of the opinion that rising tides economics makes more sense, not because a college professor told them so, or latent guilt of their generational wealth compels them, but because the circumstances of their life have demanded it. Americans chose Senator Obama not because of desire to make history, but rather because on his merits, they see Barack Obama as the best option to solve the problems they face. We have to give ourselves more credit as a society, but more importantly we have to find the silent 34% and get their input. 

    With our problems I have only known America to be a society that is actually better than it recognizes. This viewpoint has been viewed as naive by many, but it comes because through accident of my birth, my interests and my pursuits I have crossed the many bridges that span the rivers of ideological divide. Like Senator Obama I have seen and lived the myriad social strata and as a result have an insight if not true empathy to the logic of why we segregate ourselves. My life experiences may be unique, but rarity does not equal invalidity. My beliefs are always confirmed as voter turnout increases. Let's not forget that once and only once our scholar democracy did earn a solid B. Once with a voter turnout of 81% America elected a President with controversial social progressive values. An unknown legislator, the standard bearer of a new and unknown political party from a backwater state, the clearest image of our fundamental values showed us that we needed a leader like Abraham Lincoln. With that in mind I reject and dismiss out of hand any argument that modern America is not a tolerant and inclusive society.

    Let us not confuse imperfection with the lack of progress. Instead let's imagine a democracy with 100% participation. A society where the imperfect image we see in the mirror is at least accurate. In order to de-corrupt our elections we have condemned lobby groups, and corporate money. Some have even criticized the role of political parties, a critique that George Washington himself would concur. But as we have seen by the seemingly contradictory candidate and ballot measure returns, with an increase of individual participation, the influence of special interests groups in all forms is reduced. This is not to say that people should not organize based on common values. I rather believe that lobby groups, unions, special interest groups and political parties are a factor of efficiency in the public debate, however until we approach 100% individual participation, even the tools of organization will be distorted. 

   We know that people will vote their best interest when it is clear that those interests will be served. Rather than waste time and energy deconstructing tools of organization we should turn those efforts to creating a culture of participation. If everyone voted their best interests, society will know itself. When we know where we are, we can know where to go. The only way to perfect our union is to increase participation. Society knows itself better than any individual can. If we create a culture of participation we can elect politicians we can trust, because as many republicans learned in this election, like democrats did in 1994, elections have consequences, but those consequences are earned in a term of office. 

   I don't know if we will ever completely live in a society without broad ideological differences. I'm not even convinced that this is even a valid goal. As I have strived to define myself in the context of the worlds in which I live by accident and by choice. As I have struggled and failed to clearly explain the values, similarities, assets and liabilities of one world to another, I have come to the conclusion that it is perhaps best to accept the beauty of a society that can sustain these happily disconnected worlds. 

                But what is true, is that in order for us to live our separate lives in cooperation rather than competition we must reach a unified culture of participation.

What we now know . . .

 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.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

  There was a very interesting editorial piece in today's Boulder Daily Camera regarding the electoral college. It was the opinion of 5th graders. I, perhaps more often than I should, defer to the logic of the playground. The innocent apolitical philosophy of playground society would of course be reckless and callous  in modern adult life, however there is no denying that some of the wisdom learned (either through experience and occasionally through force) playing baseball and tag during lunch at John Harvard Elementary in Queens Village, N.Y. has guided me, and been a more secure rudder than much of the abstract, if not well thought out  policies born in the libraries of that other Harvard.

What I learned at Harvard (elementary)

1. Life isn't fair so you better take opportunities when they come. But keep it real, good luck is equally an injustice as bad luck so take the good with the bad.

2. If someone is a jerk, you have two options, engage and accept the consequences (if you win, the brutal hand of the law, if you loose a fleshy black eye) or diplomacy. On the playground those who harbor bias and malice are ostracized until they either see the error of their ways or finally become disenfranchised and irrelevant. 

3. Popularity is important. Further it's frequently more important to be popular than it is to be right.

How do these three playground lessons translate into modern life?

  The first lesson teaches us the importance of not being a hypocrite. It looks poorly on adults to decry misfortune, particularly misfortune of design and not recognize  the inherent inequity of good fortune. For example it would simply be disingenuous  for us to wallow in woe as a result of this current financial crisis when this is a misfortune that we all actively pursued. Lenders did not have to be so reckless with their qualifications, but we as Americans did not "Need" that new car, tv, house, kitchen, vacation ... For those supporting the democratic ticket this misfortune has been a windfall of electoral support but we must temper the victory celebrations with the sobriety of the significant challenges ahead. This unjust good fortune is financed with the homes and jobs of many who are truly innocent.

 Lesson two teaches us about how to reconcile differences of opinion. We too frequently attach a persons views to our perception of them as a person. We for example confuse disinterest in environmental stewardship with a general misanthropy, we assume bias equates to inability to be compassionate. Rather than diplomatically seeking an amicable compromise we chose to engage because after all "they" are wrong. This engagement however simply proves valid, the very worst concerns about us, that those we disagree with believe. On the playground since the consequences of engagement are as negative as they are immediate, by and large children favor the longer, more prudent diplomatic route. They form coalitions of the willing to systematically make those with a social disorder irrelevant. Granted something goes wrong as the innocent self selections of the "geeks" "nerds" "jocks" and "cool kids" who seem to live in harmonious isolation morph into the adult institutions of "liberals"  "conservatives"  "democrats" and "republicans" (not respectively), but what those germinal institutions understand is there is no shame working together when necessary,  even if it requires concessions. Further unlike in the adult world, where the rare individuals that feel equally comfortable in all those groups is called, unprincipled at best, a traitor at worst, on the playground these people are called at worst popular, at best class president. The play ground teaches us that is is okay to to group together with those we want (Hence you have the Boulder's and Austin's of the world) but we fail (if your a jock or a cool kid in elementary school literally) if there is not cooperation.

  The lesson of popularity is frequently lost on adults. Unfortunately with an increase in education comes a disproportionate predilection to suffer from the illusion that accuracy is more important than the ability to sell it. As we learned from lesson two, those individuals who are comfortable moving between myriad groups, rise to leadership in the proto-society of the playground, sometimes even in spite of themselves. How many elections have we seen at all levels of government that the person who was clearly the most intelligent and most qualified was handily defeated. In a democracy the only entity that knows what's best for society is society itself. While the intellectual elite will certainly support the intellectual candidate by and large, even a few of them will be courted and succumb to the wiles of the cool kid. Meanwhile everybody else (who is the majority remember elite means minority) will overwhelming support the popular kid that they can relate to. This is actually okay, this is actually how it ought to work.  They only way for us to know where society is to look directly at it's reflection as becomes clear in the mirror of elections. The higher the voter turnout the clearer the picture and the aggregate is the truth, doesn't mean we have to like what we see, but like looking at ourselves in the mirror as individuals the honest assessment is how we should make policy.

  With the caveat that even with the likely record voter turnout of the 2008 election cycle, we are woefully short of the 100% voter turnout that would tell us the truth. Further for every percentage point short of 100 we know the exact percentage by which our view of society is distorted. (i.e 80% turnout = 20% perversion of the view of society). With that said, it is very consistent that 5th graders would be so unified in opposition to the electoral college. Aside from the fact that the electoral college does not solve the problem it is intended to address, the undue influence of large states on national politics, it is also a distortion of the picture of society. The most recent example of course is that of 2000 when the popular vote gave us a (49% distorted) vision of a center left society but we ended up with a right oriented administration. How can we be surprised that the public policy of the past seven years has failed. Not only has history proven those policies invalid, electoral history (2000 popular vote, the consistent march to the left in local and state elections and of course the 2006 midterm election) has proven the center right philosophy unpopular. Barack Obama is going to win this election not because he's smarter than John McCain (I think that he is), but because he is the standard bearer of the center left political philosophy that is currently popular in this country. Obama maybe the darling of the "geeks" and "nerds" but he is also a cool kid. 

   It will be interesting to see if the liberal base who was staunchly supportive of eliminating the electoral college after the 2000 election will be continue to be committed to this position once they regain the reigns of government, or will the unfortunate truth that power corrupts be proven true once again. Barack Obama will win the popular vote, and likely a decisive electoral college victory. That does not change the fundamental flaws of the electoral college that it exacerbates the undue influence of population centers rather than diminish it, while distorting, sometimes beyond recognition the reflection of society that elections provide, the only guide by which good leaders can know where we are where we need to go.

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

How I actually voted

  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, Democrat

While 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, Democrat

Mark 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, Democrat

In 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, Democrat

In 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, Democrat

There 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 Commissioners

We 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, Libertarian

Cindy 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: No

A person's choice for how to manage their reproductive health is simply not an appropriate role for Government.

Amendment 49: No

I 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: No

When 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: Yes

I 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: No

I 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: No

He 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: No

This 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: Yes

click here

City of Boulder 2A: Yes

click here

City of Boulder 2B: Yes

Just 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: Yes

This is simply a logistical clean-up

City of Boulder 2E: Yes

With 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: Yes

Though 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

Oh 'Cmon!

I voted for ammendment 47. I am a proponent of "right to work". While I understand the concerns about a possible end run around unions, I believe those fears to be, at best paranoid.

That said, this is among the most outrageous political billboards I've seen this year. This is one of several to be seen as you drive west on Colfax through Denver. I mean this says nothing about what ammendment 47 is. The phrase "for a better Colorado" and the accompanying iconagraphy is only missing a smiley face and a unicorn to be confused with a plug for a childrens movie.

Stay tuned for my blog post on how I actually voted, and Mr. Jan's, tear down this billboard.

For Boulder's sake . . . pt3 Yes on 2A

  I will preface this post with a few points for disclosure:

1. I have not decided whether or not I will run for City Council next fall.

2. This measure failed by  less than 100 votes last year

3. I am no fan of our current City Council

  This is the right measure at the wrong time, but I do ask the reader to consider a vote of yes on 2A to raise council compensation. Like the other City issues on the ballot, it is important to decouple the merits of the issue from the performance of this council. 

     Without saying "you get what you pay for . . ." It is important to realize that the compensation of about $6000 a year for at best a part-time job, but really and additional full time job is not enough to encourage those who would likely be the best for the gig. Boulder is an expensive place to live, and if you are a working class person in Boulder it is a decided disincentive to serve on council, not to say that a raise to $12,000 will open the flood gate of opportunity but it would certainly cast a wider net. If the goal is to attract a higher quality of council members, and to diversify the tax brackets that are represented on council, and thus have a council who's decision more accurately reflect the values of Boulder's residents, particularly it's working class, in the cost benefit analysis an additional $6,000 dollars spent on council compensation in the context of 237 million dollar budget is worth the risk. 

   

   There is also the argument about "public service" I understand that argument, but encourage you to consider the value of the practical input of lower economic classes in the political process. When positions of public policy are solely occupied with those with great means, you tend to get a body politic that doesn't give appropriate gravity to the dollars they spend. Working class people inherently know the importance of tightening the belt in hard times. Further they are intrinsically more empathetic to the impacts of public fiscal policy on personal finances. I do not intended to begin class warfare here but there is no denying that as the  taxation measure becomes a larger percentage of your income, the less likely you are to support it. The lower the income of a council member the more fiscally conservative they are likely to be, not to say the wealthy members are reckless, it's that they are as sensitive as is appropriate in their personal lives. A higher level of sensitivity to revenue generation and a higher burden of proof for the effectiveness of expenditures is a good thing in the public discourse. If you believe that is valuable to broaden the economic perspective of our city's leadership then vote yes on 2A.

  This issue is not a referendum on the current council, but it may play a role in the composition of future councils. And there is the question of the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. When the City's charter was written and council compensation established in the early years of the previous century, $400 a month was A LOT OF MONEY. The intent of the authors was that for members of council, attention to the city's business should be a major priority and therefore should be compensated thusly. A pay increase to $1000 a month is a big increase by percentage but falls short of the Consumer price index inflation adjustment of $6,469.33 for equivalent value in 1917. The spirit of the law is that council should be compensated in a manner consistent with a considerable time commitment. Perhaps the failures of recent councils is a direct result of those who do work not being able to devote enough time, while the majority of the body is comprised of those who do not work and have lost touch with the true value of the hard earned dollars of their constituents. 

  Local government is best when it is pragmatic. Practical solutions can only be effective if they encompass the needs of the full body of residents. The best way to assure that we have a broad discussion is to ensure the full economic spectrum is represented. 2A is not about this council, it's about improving opportunities  for our residents to serve. Please consider a vote of yes on City of Boulder 2A, for Boulder's sake.