Liberal and Loving It

My “break” with Ken

In the classic Adam's Rib Spencer Tracy plays a D.A. and Katherine Hepburn plays an attorney. You know that Spencer Tracy is a Republican (old school) where the law is the law. And you know Katherine Hepburn is a Democrat where the situation and background are as important as the law. Ken Buck is a D.A. through and through and comes across like Spencer Tracy in Adam's Rib – including the likability.

This had to be my fastest request to interview ever. I emailed Ken yesterday and got a call this morning. We ended up meeting at a McDonalds (you deserve a break today) along I-25. (And because I was already at work with no interview scheduled, I was dressed very casually.) He's definitely enjoying the campaign so far – very relaxed and low key.

Most unexpected part of the interview – Ryan Frazier's name was never brought up by him. I brought it up a couple of times in questions and he always responded more generally. He compared himself to Michael Bennet some. He compared himself to "Democrats" a bit more. But mostly he compared himself to the way things have been run "for some time." He did not single Republican policy out as a problem so much as he would say there was plenty of blame to go around and both parties had gotten us in to this mess.

So what does Ken want to bring to Washington? His core desire is to bring the interrelated elements of lower spending, less government, a balanced budget, and more freedom. And this combined thread came up time and time again as he was discussing issues. But here's the amazing thing – he was willing to discuss specifics and to do so honestly. It wasn't cut waste, fraud and a vague un-needed programs. Instead he discussed…

That our military should be used for protecting the security of the United States – and that's it. So if military action is needed to protect our country, and only in that case, we then go to war. As he says, this drastically reduces the military budget and that is a substantial savings. He was also adamant that when this is necessary, it requires a declaration of war by the Congress. This was probably the most emotional part of the conversation where he eloquently laid out why this is required by the constitution and is necessary to restrict our actions to true military threats. And on this he's both right (the constitution requires it) and correct (we will be better served by following the law).

He then discussed healthcare. On this he talked quite a bit about bringing efficiencies to the system. That led to a discussion about a really interesting software system they are about to take live up in Weld County that ties together everyone from the DMV to every police force with jurisdiction up there, the courts, DA, etc so that everything moves through the legal process electronically with all needed information tied to it. What's interesting here is he drove this improvement and so he comes at this as someone who knows in his gut the improvements that we can bring about in healthcare.

I asked about systemic changes other than improved I.T. for healthcare and he discussed some of the issues, but did not push a specific solution other than to say single payer was not the answer and we do need to keep it in the private sphere. I think this is reasonable as this is a really hard problem and I'm glad to see he doesn't trot out some simplistic pabulum. He did bring up the example of the hospital up in Greeley that opened an urgent care center next to the E.R. so that people who come to the E.R. as their primary care can be directed to urgent care (which is a lot cheaper) if that was sufficient. This again goes to his response which is pointing to specific working solution.

He also volunteered that we do need healthcare for everyone – that it basically has come to be seen as a right and as such we need to come up with a way to make sure everyone has insurance. What is really interesting about this is repeatedly in Ken's comments it was clear that he sees a necessary and needed role for government. It's a smaller role than a lot of us on the other side of the aisle prefer, but he does not want to shrink the government down to nothing.

He mentioned immigration in passing so I then asked him if he thought it would be a major issue and he got a pained look on his face. He then talked at length about how his job is enforcing the law and it was not a liberal vs. conservative thing but much more trying to reduce the rampant identity theft Weld County faces. This is clearly a sensitive topic for him – I think in large degree because he feels his motivation is misunderstood.

He then discussed what we need to do. He would like to see us permanently fix the problem with a law that brings in the people we need so there is no great incentive to sneak in. I mentioned that the country seems to go nuts about this every 16 – 18 years and his observation was we keep creating a band-aid that lasts for 16 – 18 years and he wants to see a permanent fix. And on the topic of will it matter in the election, he doesn't think it will (I agree).

We talked about the economic mess and he started off with the "selling houses to people that can't afford them" (which is a tertiary issue at best). But when I asked if that was it he said no and then dove into the lax regulation and selling things like CDOs in ways that made no sense. He said that numerous people up in Greeley repeatedly told him that New Frontier bank had to go under the way they were operating, yet apparently the FDIC missed what was so obvious to the business leaders in Greeley. That definitely was a major screw-up.

He also was very direct about the greed on the part of bankers and others in the system that ran the system for their own personal profit. He definitely sees the full picture here and talks directly to all of it. (And hey, it's not like we Dems don't ever order problems based on politics rather than order of magnitude.)

So then we discussed how he would have like to see the crash handled. And this was refreshing. For the car companies, have them go through bankruptcy. As he said, if they cannot be profitable we can shut them down now, or we can shut them down in 5 years after spending hundreds of billions. But the end result is the same. And if they can be made profitable, then bankruptcy will get them there.

On the banks, if they are underwater, have the FDIC take them over, clean them up, and sell them. Again, he sees it that we can do it now, or we can do it in 5 years. And truth to tell, do any of us think Citi will do any better after they know that the government will always step in and rescue them and their stockholders? So on this issue we have Ken Buck in agreement with Paul Krugman (it's a weird world right now).

He also discussed working to find common ground. He brought up a number of specifics such as at least having Education money go straight to the local school boards rather than through the Dept of Education. So he gets the feds out of what he thinks should be a local issue. And the money remains. He was also upfront that he would prefer the federal government not even be involved in this (that whole less spending/balanced budget thing). There were 5 or 6 items where he hit it like this.

At the end I asked him if he could have one bill passed what would it be and he said a requirement to balance the budget. But again his full response was indicative of the fact that Ken is not into simplistic answers. I asked if that had to be a constitutional amendment and he said probably to actually work, but clearly would prefer to do it via statute if that would work. He also added that there should be an out for war and other major problems where a 60% override would allow for deficits. And he stated that 60% could be met with the current congress, but still the exception was needed. He definitely looks at how best to structure the system, not what will work best today for political advantage.

What I find really interesting about Ken is he's one of the top 2 GOP candidates for the Senate and while both nationwide and in Colorado we see a lot of far-right posturing and speeches, Ken is a candidate that is thoughtful, open-minded, and dare I say it without destroying his chances in the primary – moderate. And he speaks directly to the issues with a willingness to discuss all the causes. Definitely a candidate the GOP can be proud of.

If you know any students at C.U.

Even if they already have a summer job lined up, if they are innovative thinkers please ask them to check out this post.

Upcoming interviews

• Congressman Lamborn has agreed to an interview and we are trying to find a time he's in Denver that works.
• Denver Mayor Hickenlooper has agreed to an interview and should get a time next week.
• I have asked Senator Udall. He's the last federal and last state-wide elected official I have not interviewed.
• I have asked all of the Boulder City Council members if I can interview them (and offered to buy them lunch during the interview).

And that's it for right now. Between work and this I barely have time to breathe.

My Coffee with Betsy

So after a killer week in Washington D.C. Betsy Markey flies home to… Meeting me on the way home (and she had another meeting after me). Anyone who thinks our Reps have an easy job has no idea what their days are like. Anyways, it was very very nice of her to stop off in a coffee shop in Longmont on the way home.

Ms. Markey goes to Washington – a Frank Capra film starring Betsy Markey as herself. It sounds dorky but Betsy is clearly awed by her job. When the weather is nice she walks outside from the Longsworth office building to the Capital so she can walk up the steps (which only members can do now) and in the main entrance of the building. Throughout the conversation she talked about the incredible responsibility she has as a representative and the history of the system. At one time she pulled out her ID and discussed the process of voting and how each vote was the culmination of all of that responsibility.

I don't think this is an act because it's what comes through when she gets going on a subject, not the initial impression she tries to give. And in the cynical world we live in many will belittle this attitude. But I think it a great attribute to have in a Representative. Because I think it drives her to do the best she can. And Betsy is no naive innocent (look back at the superb campaign she ran), so this does not detract from her ability to be effective.

She's clearly enjoying herself. Throughout the conversation she was alive and energetic as she talked about what she's done, what she's going to do, talking to constituents, learning the system, etc. It was really interesting as she talked about getting lost in the Capital, learning which meetings mattered and which could be skipped, meeting others, etc.

She also talked about how long it took to get things set up. Betsy owned a small software company where anything that needed to be done was done instantly. But here she was waiting weeks for computers, then weeks to get them set up on the network (and probably thinking she could do it herself in ½ hour if allowed). And meantime as she said constituent email and letters and calls were coming in and they expected a response, not a delay. When we all complain about how slow the government is it's nice to know that our Reps truly do feel our pain.

Betsy said the most pleasantly surprising item was how supportive & friendly everyone is, Republicans as well as Democrats. Outside of the large contentious issues she says there is a lot of camaraderie and a lot of cooperation across the aisle. She was almost gushing about the Republican that worked with her on the Read Across America bill. The experienced members actively reach out to help the freshman. And like Jared, she is very very appreciative about Speaker Pelosi's weekly meeting with the freshmen as mostly they are to be seen but not heard. This is really good to hear because we can't survive as a country if our politicians cannot work together.

She said one of the roughest things so far is that every interest group in the country descends on Washington in March and she could have 15 or 20 meetings a day with these various groups. What was fascinating about her comment was that because there were so many, she had notes and had the key points, but could not give each the time and attention she would like to because of the quantity. (Note to interest groups – let all the others go in March, you go hit the Congress in April when they are not as slammed.)

I asked her about what she is going to accomplish over the next two years and she then discussed a bit about how as just one person out of the house and as a freshman the impact you can have is small. On the big bills you vote, but you don't influence them. That is what it is and with 435 members it must run like that. So no grandiose plans to introduce some major bill.

Betsy talked about how the committees is where you can have an impact, and in the committees it's via amendments that you can most effectively impact legislation. She then talked about how she has done this with a couple of amendments. She is most proud of amending a fire mitigation funding bill that expanded the definition of what can be mitigated to noxious weeds so it can be used to help fight the weed (spurge?) that is growing over tons of S.E. Colorado. She described how the amendment was a stretch from the definition of the bill but she made it fit and it passed and with that she got the needed funding. She described a number of other amendments including one that expanded help for waste treatment plants to include small systems that can't afford the matching funds. She clearly has learned how to be effective.

She discussed transportation and working to make sure that it got Colorado the money it needs to improve our roads. She discussed agriculture and how she likes the current farm bill and thinks we have a good farm policy. And she discussed water (quoted Mark Twain) and went in to all the issues we face on water. I think she is still getting fully up to speed on a number of these issues and does not see any major problems for Colorado on these in the upcoming legislation.

She also discussed Piñon Canyon and how the Army was not going to be grabbing it. No way, no how, not going to happen. She sees this as a major ongoing fight and one that she is going to put everything in to. And watching her as she discussed this, she is emotional about this. This isn't just policy or constituent service, this is personal. And so I think she will expend maximum effort on this.

She did not talk about President Obama much. She was very complimentary when she did but her discussion was much more on the nuts and bolts of being a legislator. But I did ask her about what was going right big picture and what was going wrong. On the going right part she brought up the stimulus bill which she thought was working very well and she was very supportive of. On the going wrong part she brought up TARP and went in to the problems with it (and I agree with her points).

She also repeatedly hit the points that first we need to think before acting. Not just on the various bills addressing this mess, but on everything. That a little bit of thought and perspective is essential to crafting good legislation. And she repeatedly hit the point that we need to give these programs some time to work out. That we cannot turn things around in a day. In other words, she has a very realistic perspective of how to approach this mess.

What is also interesting is that was her discussion of the giant issues – the economy and the banks. And she's right, those two problems totally overpower everything else. But she did make no mention of healthcare, energy/climate change, or Iraq/Afghanistan. This is probably partially due to the committee's she is on and partially due to there being only so many hours in the day. I think this is also indicative of what you get with Betsy – you get a straight answer. No single person can be on top of all these issues, much less a significant contributor. They can talk them all up, but they can't contribute. With Betsy you actually learn what she is putting her time toward.

At the end she asked me about what if going on the blogosphere. And it wasn't just a question or two, she was grilling me as to topics, attitude, etc. She wants to know what it is we care about and what we would like to see happen. (Don't worry, I gave her a truly honest of the breath of opinion and issues – that curiously happened to exactly match my personal views.)

This grilling ties into another strength of Betsy's. Shortly after getting elected Betsy travelled throughout her district meeting the political leaders throughout – county commissioners, city leaders, etc. to find out what issues they faced that could be helped from Washington. It sounds like a small thing but it actually is a significant effort and it shows a clear attitude that she wants to know what the people in her district are thinking about, what issues they face, etc.

So what do we have with Betsy? Someone who takes this job very responsibly, has the energy and excitement to perform it well, and the political skills to perform it effectively. And she's still getting up to speed. As to the '10 election, I think she'll rock.

My sit-down with Jane

Update: I've received a bunch of emails about this post and with one exception all wish Jane would take a more active role on policy. And what they wish she was more active on is... All over the place. I think she handles this right but boy is that under-appreciated.

I got the chance to interview Boulder City Manager Jane Bratigaum this morning. She was very gracious and professional. So what do we have with Jane?

I think we have a very good match here – a conservative manager for a conservative city. Now before everyone explodes, I use the term conservative in the original meaning of the word – that everyone wants things to stay as they are and whatever change does occur should occur very very slowly and only after thorough discussion, investigation, etc. In that sense Boulder has a very good match with Jane.

Jane also is very clearly a manager implementing the council policy, not someone fighting the council. Many city managers try to act like mayors and that is almost always a mess. We clearly don't have that with Jane.

Exhibit 1, I asked her if she could have the City Council pass one bill what would it be – and her response was virtually one of horror over the idea that she would even propose a bill. And she was then very adamant that there was nothing, absolutely nothing she would propose if told she could have any bill passed. This did not come across as what she was supposed to say – it came across as something that is not even open for consideration.

Exhibit 2, I asked her about what the hardest part of working with Council is. And she dove into the difficulty and time commitment of communicating fully with 9 people. Her previous City had 7 council members and she said 2 additional people is a significant additional hit. Which comes back to her viewing a large part of her job being the implementation under the leadership of the council.

Ok, so on to the budget. What is going to happen? There will be meetings. There will be studies. There will be presentations. There will be retreats. There will be surveys. AARGH! Ok, I realize this is how it works. And this desire to run it through this system is a necessary part of our democracy. But like getting a flu shot, the fact that it's a good thing does not mean I have to like it.

And at the end of this process the council will set policy priorities, budget priorities, what is cut, what is included (with each pushing for the items they most value to be included). And then she will implement that budget. And again, she clearly sees this as a process just starting and this process will determine what happens.

So nothing to report on what will be reduced, what will be cut, and what will be left alone.

I also asked about systemic changes – where instead of cutting back or working harder, they find a different way to provide a service that significantly reduces costs. She said the IT department is looking for ways it can improve (which is the best first place to look) and they are looking for duplication across departments. But nothing major on finding different ways to provide services.

I then asked about the police department budget as it's the largest single department in the city budget. And her response to this was that the police & fire budget is to be left alone. That police, fire, & roads are the core services a city provides and that Boulder is providing those at the appropriate level with good efficiency and therefore no cuts there.

During this part of the discussion at one point she said the budget for the police was not something she could recall. Pretty clearly she views this as running well and so she can pay it less attention than other areas. And as she views her role as implementing council policy, I'd say this reflects the view on council too.

So Boulder take heart, we may have libraries closed and parks ignored – but there will be money to pay for police to arrest naked people running with pumpkins on their heads.

I asked her about the proposed new C.U. building over on Grand Avenue. She does not know how hard the city will fight this issue because that decision is up to council. She did talk about the rough legal position the city is in because the University can do pretty much what it wants. Then in the next breath she talked about wanting to improve city-university relations. She is definitely focused on keeping things civil and discussions open regardless of how this plays out.

We then talked about housing. I asked about the choice facing Boulder, we can grow out, we can grow higher, or we can grow richer. She did speak well to this and said that Boulder has clearly decided to make us an island so growing out is not an option.

She then discussed denser housing. When I said did that mean taller she countered that no, it meant smaller units for everyone so more would fit in the existing envelope. She then talked about how people would need to make a lifestyle change to then live in that size of a unit. This is a pipe dream where the city is trying to avoid some hard choices it must make – but it appears to be the present "answer."

She then talked about the city's commitment to affordable housing. When I asked about how most people buying affordable units were people gaming the system to make themselves fit the criteria, she was very adamant (almost angry) that that does not occur and that the affordable housing group in the city does a good job verifying eligibility. Based on her reaction I think she honestly thinks it is running well – and maybe the way it plays out here is as good as it gets for affordable. But I would have preferred to hear that yes they know people game it like crazy and they are working to eliminate that.

And what discussion of housing would be complete without Washington Elementary (note: my wife worked for Jim Leach for a couple of years – she left before all the Washington drama). Jane thinks that worked well because everyone was able to present their opinions and the final compromise was one where everyone was unhappy but could live with the result. And as she rightly points out, that is a good measure of a reasonable compromise.

So for housing it looks like for now the answer to high prices is a push for smaller rooms and business as usual on who gets affordable units (ie prices will keep rising).

I asked her about cell phone conversations while driving (she apparently spends most of her time driving on the phone) and what she'll do when Claire Levy's bill is passed. She said she will happily put her phone down because it's dangerous talking while driving. Personally this strikes me as saying the only reason a person doesn't drive after drinking is because it's against the law. With that said, that's the same response of most people now.

She finished up by talking about what she hopes to accomplish. Implementing the Climate Action Plan is at the top of her list. She sees this as a major ongoing effort that is really important. (And while we can quibble over the specifics – the basic idea is a very good idea.) This is a major difficult endeavor, this is council policy, and this is something new. So it's a natural top priority for her.

There you have it. Jane is executing her job in the manner it is designed for. Yes she has significant influence due to her job but she is not a power center on policy. She is trying to take Boulder where it wants to go. And while I'd like to see Boulder change its direction on numerous issues, I am also glad to see Jane is not trying to effect change on her own as that is not the role of her job. So time will tell but I think she may turn out to be a very good city manager.

I also think if she does her job properly many will be upset that she did not take a more active role on policy (in the direction each person wanted).

Who's busier than the Governor?

Update: got a call this morning and they asked me to come in today 10:30 - 11:30. So if anyone has a suggested question, post it as a comment here before 10:15 today (4/24). And to the reader(s) here that suggested to Jane that the interview would be worthwhile - thank you.

I tried to get an interview with Jane Brautigam (Boulder City Manager) to see how the City is going to handle the economic downturn, budget cuts, etc. I asked for ½ hour in person.

They offered 15 minutes on the phone - while she was driving between meetings. I commented that I would never interview someone on a cell phone while driving it suddenly became on the phone from her office J.

I declined because a lot of communication is the non-verbal part and a quick drive-by on the phone is not going to lead to an interesting interview. So no point in wasting her time or mine.

I guess it weighs out differently for elected vs. appointed. Not that the appointed positions are more important or require more work, but that getting the word out about yourself is critical for those running for election and not so for people appointed.

But I do find it humorous that she is more busy than a Governor or Senator. And for those hoping for a substantive interview on how the city will approach the budget cuts – sorry.

My Dinner with Michael

It was pure happenstance but the same day I had my interview with Senator Bennet I also had an ok to blog the Boulder Girls Gone Liberal (AKA Democratic Women of Boulder County) event for Senator Bennet. So I got to see him at both ends of the day.

Here are a few of my impressions after watching him up close in an interview, and then in front of a crowd:

First off, this guy is tireless. I met with him at 8:00 a.m. and this event ended at 8:00 p.m. and he was every bit as personable and quick witted as in the morning. A couple of times he stumbled in finding the right phrase or figuring out what to say, but that was on issues he clearly was not up-to-speed on and so that could be unfamiliarity with the subject rather than 12 hours of go, go go.

Second, he is personable. He does a good job of coming across as familiar, approachable, one of us.Yet at the same time he retains the aura of someone who is eminently qualified to be a U.S Senator. The other personal attribute is one that you only are aware of if you realize it's absence – he comes across as ego-less.

He got some hard questioning, but while questioners did not like some of his answers, they appeared to find his response acceptable. And I think in those exchanges he won pretty much everyone over. Because people found his responses respectful, thoughtful, and reasonable.

On the issues:

Bennet strongly and vocally supports President Obama. In the '10 election the sole focus at the federal level will be 60 votes in the Senate. Bennet could come out in favor of unicorn research, call Obama a socialist, and trash talk Harry Reid and he'd still have the strong active support of the party. And this support comes at the strategic level. He supports Obama's priorities and the basic outlines as set out by Obama. Furthermore he always states this as he agrees with Obama on each item. Not that he is supporting it because Obama is the president or it's the party platform, but because he agrees with the proposals.

On Darfur, Bennet was asked what he is going to do about it and he replied, essentially: absolutely nothing. He said he knew that Senator Kerry is going to Darfur and that he would provide any support that he could to Kerry. He also spoke about some of the specifics, so it was clear he is up to speed on it. And he finished with asking the questioner that if she had any suggestions for what actions he could take, he is very interested in them. (This answer impressed me. Bennet could have spun out a bunch of trite generalizations. He could have claimed that he was involved with Kerry. He could have gone into a long discussion about how the situation there is horrible. Instead he was up-front saying that he is not working on that – and explained why. It was refreshing.)

On Education funding, I think Bennet demonstrated that he is being honest with his constituents. At the end of his answer on this, when there was absolutely no need to add anything more, in front of a very liberal group in Boulder, he said that you could double the funding for education and if you don't fix the system first, it will make no difference.

EFCA – He said that he has talked to numerous workers who are convinced that without EFCA unionization is dead. And he has talked to numerous business owners who are convinced that if it passes American business is dead. (News alert to both – it's actually not that big a deal either way.) What was very interesting in Bennet's answer was his statement that because he has just joined the Senate, he's one of the very few with no set of previous statements on this issue. And as such it lets him work with both sides with no one seeing him as leaning one way or the other. The impression he gave is he is using that as a means of reaching some kind of compromise between the parties. It will be interesting to see how this plays out but based on Michael's willingness to speak plainly, even where it hurts him, I'm willing to take him at his word that he is trying to find a solution here, and he hates neither unions or business.

Cap & Trade vs. Carbon Tax – I loved his answer on this. He said that numerous people who's judgment he highly respects and are very knowledgeable on this have told him that cap & trade is the only sensible answer and a carbon tax would be a mess. And that numerous other people who's judgment he highly respects and are very knowledgeable on this have told him that a carbon tax is the only sensible answer and cap & trade would be a mess. Based on what he said he clearly is trying to determine exactly what the trade-offs are between the two approaches. He was clear, however, that if one is brought forward and it's that or nothing, it's got his vote.

Health Insurance – Boy do the people of Boulder love Single Payer, possibly even more than they love prairie dogs. And if Bennet wasn't clear on that, he had several questioners making sure he knows. On this he took the Obama line that we must fix this, that there are major criteria the fix must meet. But outside of that he's open to whatever is brought forward if it meets those guidelines. And he did say that if a single-payer plan was brought forward, he would vote for it. A Senator can't do everything, especially one running for election for the first time next year. I'd say on health insurance that if we get a solution that is a true fix, Michael will vote for it but won't put a lot of time in on this issue. But if bringing a solution forward hits a roadblock, then I think he clearly will get very involved moving that proposal forward.

What it means:

Michael Bennet is clearly a very smart guy. Take his answer on education funding: He knew that group, if anything, would want more money and less accountability in the schools. He didn't need to say anything to directly confront the audience in Boulder, and yet he came right out and said that major reform is needed first.

I think I learned a couple of things from that, and other similar answers:

First Michael Bennet is going to tell us what he's thinking on issues, even where we're not asking. Yes he's a politician, yes he'll shade things at times, yes he'll select what to talk about. But he is by and large going to be straight-up with us. On education, on Darfur, on Obama's proposals he's giving us honest answers. And I think that is a gigantic plus in his favor.

Second, it tells us that with education he sees the real problems we face, and that solving these problems are important to him. He is clearly willing to risk votes, risk his chance of winning in 2010, so that he can do it the way that he thinks it should be done.

So color me even more impressed. He can sell it, and he does so while being honest with people. He gives the voters clear specific answers to their questions. He is listening to the voters and taking that into account, but is also true to his inner voice. Michael Bennet was not Ritter's only good option, but he definitely was a superb choice.

note: I had someone graciously offer to edit the above and for those that are interested this file has my original article and the article with all edits. The above is the final article where I kept most edits.

Macon's Memo

Here it is exactly as I received it from Bob Greenlee:

Sender: Cowles, Macon

A couple of councillors and several others have asked for a copy of my remarks to the Council at the April 7 meeting on the Climate Action Plan. Here they are:

Macon Cowles Comments-Climate Action Plan-City Council Meeting April 7, 2009

Here is the clearest way forward. As a general matter, we need to move beyond early adopters. We need to focus on the largest sectors, and reduce the carbon in those sectors. We need to adopt programs in which everyone participates-not 30 businesses, but all 6,000 businesses. Not just 150 homeowners, but all homeowners. Not zero landlords, but all landlords. The first cut is to divide this problem in two: production on the one hand, and consumption on the other. An essential principle, widely shared in the community, is that we debarbonize our energy.

Production Side-the Franchise Agreement
1.      The franchise agreement, if it is to go to the voters and have a chance for approval, a new franchise agreement must contain a blueprint for decarbonizing our energy supply. Some of our citizens have suggested that 30% of our energy come from renewables in 2010, and that it increase by 10% per year thereafter. That is a reasonable goal.

2.      The City must have access to meter specific information. Otherwise, we cannot regulate carbon emissions adequately. Speed limits are unenforceable-unless you can measure the speed of the driver. You cannot issue a speeding ticket unless you know how fast a car is traveling. Likewise, it will be impossible for the City to regulate carbon, or introduce the concept of an energy budget (similar to water budgets now) unless the City has access to meter specific information.

3.      We must have the right for community choice aggregation-so that if Xcel does not deliver the increasing percentage of renewable energy that is required under the franchise agreement, consumers within the franchise area can pool their power needs and purchase power elsewhere, paying Xcel a fair amount for use of the distribution lines to deliver power to consumers.

4.      Failing these, or any of them, we should not renew the franchise for 20 years. Xcel has a duty to supply Boulder with gas and electric under the old franchise until it is cancelled, or until a new agreement is in place.

The Consupmtion side-Reducing Carbon emissions: the general principle is that fewer programs are better than the two dozen programs suggested in the 2009 Community Guide. Many programs will keep the staff very busy; fewer programs that are effective will achieve the goal of substantial carbon reduction.

1.      Commercial Conservation Code: we should adopt an ordinance that requires all buildings to be 50% more energy efficient than code compliant buildings, with an effective date of December 31, 2012. Staff should then be deployed to connect commercial property owners with the Xcel DSM rebates, which pay for 2/3 of Energy Conservation Measures (ECM's) in commercial buildings during 2009 and 2010.

2.      Residential Conservation Code: we should adopt an ordinance that requires all buildings to be 50% more energy efficient than code compliant buildings, with an effective date of December 31, 2015. Staff should then be deployed to connect property owners to the DSM programs and rebates that are available in the interim, including the County's ClimateSmart Loan Program.

a.      As a tactic to implement this strategy, highly visible programs such as two workers in a truck moving through neighborhoods to do insulation and weather sealing, can be considered.
b.      This is where direct funding from the carbon tax, and large carbon reductions, can be brought to the homes of low-income people.

3.      Transportation: the most intractable of all carbon emissions, because it implicates a deeply engrained constitutional right to travel. Shake the box in Go Boulder-the part of the Transportation Department devoted to reducing VMT. Here is where new programs may bear fruit.

4.      Localization of agriculture. Study localizing the food supply. Staff can foster cooperation between Growing Gardens and The Farmer's Market to test the feasibility of increasing local land under tillage in order to reduce the phenomenon of the 2,000 mile salad.

5.      Lead in the development of software that can model emissions based on different transportation and land use scenarios. Work with other cities. Get our Colaboratory working on it. As the software is scaled up, DRCOG can be used to test it. There are at least two institutions that have this software in early stages of development.

Structural Changes

1.      Reconstitute the CAP AG into a group of 7 specialists with broad knowledge of responses to climate change.
a.      Put out an announcement and a questionnaire, receive applications, do interviews as we do for Boards & Commissions. Let's plan to have the new CAP AG in place by May 15. EAB members would be eligible for the CAP AG.
b.      Let the CAP AG function rapidly, setting its own agenda and meeting times. Their task is to come up with the best ideas of how to reduce emissions, much as Boulder CAN has done in the last few weeks.
c.      The CAP AG can also answer questions within their areas of expertise that are posed by staff or Council.
2.      Form other groups of special advisers as needed to provide experience and expertise on the big projects rolled out to cut emissions.
3.      Use RFP's as a way of putting the ingenuity of our people to work on carbon reduction. Starting with the $1 million that the City will get in a block grant for weatherization, issue an RFP for the most effective ways of deploying that money.

My Breakfast with Michael

I had the opportunity this morning to talk to Senator Michael Bennet. Michael describes himself as someone who has been lucky in the opportunities that life has provided him. I'd phrase it that Michael has worked hard to insure that many opportunities have come his way and then worked hard to make use of them. As Nolan Bushnell said "Everyone who's ever taken a shower has an idea. It's the person who gets out of the shower, dries off and does something about it who makes a difference."

One item of personal (to me) interest, Michael is the proud father of 3 daughters. As a fellow father of 3 daughters, we traded a couple of stories of being the one male in the household. He clearly loves his family.

Ok, on to the interview. Michael is running for election in '10. This is his first time on the ballot and so he has to close the sale with all of Colorado. Time is short and there's a lot of campaigning to do. So Michael dove right in to discussing… how the Denver Public Schools are doing, and what needs to be addressed in our public school system. Some of it was on changes that had been wrought in DPS and their effect, and much was on things that remain to be done.

I think he happily could have spent the entire hour discussing public education, and we did spend over 10 minutes on it. Michael clearly enjoys talking about how to determine the root cause of the problems we face, and how to fix them. And gravitates to that, as opposed to selling himself for the next election.

Add to this Michael's work history, where he has moved to significantly different job after significantly different job (albeit with a consistent theme of organizations that are in a world of hurt) and it draws a picture of an individual who is driven to solve complex systemic problems. (Which begs the question, I wonder if he would have been interested in the Senate if the country was running fine.)

So then we launched in to what is he doing for the next 2 years. I postulated that getting elected is a significant part of his time and he agreed. And with that he has his covering the state mapped out with what has been hit, what is coming, when each part was hit, etc. He is very focused and serious on winning in '10.

But he launched in to discussing the financial mess. He had an interesting twist on the problem, that having this occur at the end of a deeply unpopular president's term significantly exacerbated the problem. And that it hit hard before we knew who the new president would be. And yes, the response from the Bush administration was pretty minimal and disjointed.

He then talked at length on the work he is putting in with Senator Warner and others under the direction of Senator Dodd to come up with the needed regulations to insure this does not happen again. He dove in first to the asleep at the wheel regulators we had. And the fact that not only was there minimal to no regulation, but the banks were being encouraged to leverage themselves even more to 20:1 or even 30:1. Clearly he saw this as insane.

At the same time he talked about the need for the regulation to work well. That it cannot be too light, but neither can it be a heavy hand that restricts the ability of the market to provide the best product and for the companies to operate efficiently. This is a very difficult issue and it will take time to know if any solution works well, but he does see the trade-offs here.

From this he talked about how the economic mess impacts people. And he talked about dreams deferred by people who are graduating from High School or College and will be in a different job, or no job, as opposed to the career they hoped to get started on. He talked about retired people who have seen their savings cut in half and are wondering what they are going to do. He sees this as individual pain that is impacting person after person.

This was surprising that someone who has worked the numbers in most of his jobs did not talk about unemployment levels, credit tightening, etc – he talked about what the impact is on individuals. Michael Bennet is focused on turning life around for people. And this means that if we get the financial markets working well again he won't say problem solved, he'll be asking if things are better for people. He wants to fix the real problem.

He next talked about healthcare. His major discussion was once again systemic, the fact that we have hit a rare point where everyone, individuals, businesses, government – everyone – sees the need to fix what is a broken system. And he followed that up with it is absolutely incumbent upon the elected leaders in Washington to step up to that challenge and solve the problem.

He also talked about how the present system is not sustainable. That the yearly double digit growth in medical costs flat out cannot continue. This growth will break the federal budget via Medicare & Medicaid. And that companies cannot continue to poor more and more money into health insurance (damn straight!).

And to address this Michael then discussed the advantage of Obama starting out high-level laying out the major criteria that any solution needs to meet and getting agreement there before diving into the how. As he said, the beauty of this as opposed to the approach of starting off with a detailed solution is you get buy in across the board on coming up with a solution before you hit the details where you are going to get arguments.

I don't think he has a specific solution in mind. Nor do I think Michael will be one of the main drivers as to what the details will be. But he clearly is applying time and attention to getting up to speed on the alternatives and will probably be a voice at the table as they work out the specifics of the solution. In other words, it does have his attention, but it does not have a boatload of his time.

And that's it for policy and legislative activity. I wish there was time for more as he is a thoughtful and intelligent guy. But our political system is what it is. And for someone just appointed to the seat, who is a relative unknown to the voters, and his first election is in 20 months – this ain't bad. Not if we want him in office 2 years from now.

Michael talked a lot about meeting the voters. He clearly likes doing this, he was excited about the meetings with voters he has scheduled today. (Note, I will be at a Democratic Women of Boulder County meet & greet he is doing this evening so I will get to see him in action.) He talked a lot about the variety of questions and concerns he gets at these events. I think he uses these not just as a way to introduce himself to people, but also to learn about what the voters are thinking about.

He then touched on the conservadem issue. He made a couple of very good points. First that he does not take the approach of to the winner goes the spoils and the Dems now should just ram through what they want. He sees the election of Obama as not just a repudiation of the Bush policies, but also a repudiation of the Bush scorched earth tactics.

Keep in mind that Michael is not proposing we must get Republican buy-off on each issue. His point is that we should try. We should talk and try to bring the Republicans on board. And he never once said the word cloture, he is talking about improving the political culture and reaching out to try and bring about that improvement.

He also was quite indignant about the group that meets being called conservative. He sees it as a group with a multitude of political views that is focused on trying to bring about a needed reduction of all out political warfare and instead have disagreement without it leading to strident posturing. And he proudly called himself progressive. (Ever notice how no one is liberal anymore – we're now all progressive.) He finds a good measure in that in the more conservative counties he's viewed as a bit more liberal than they would like.

I want to add my personal opinion here. I think it is critical that we get this country back to the mode where the Democrats & Republicans are working together for the good of our country. Yes there will be disagreement, and yes the majority party will prevail most of the time, but it remains a joint effort. If we don't do this, we run the risk of becoming two closed camps where we divide the country in half – and that would be horrible. In addition, the Republicans do have a lot of good ideas and we need to make use of those ideas, and the critical review by the Republican members. Ok, rant over.

At the end I asked Michael if he walks into his office next Monday and Reid, McConnell, Pelosi, & Obama are in his office and tell him that he can hand them a bill and they will pass it immediately, what would it be. And his answer was he would like it to be healthcare but he would need more time to craft that bill. So it would be legislation to make alternative certification for teachers a reality.

This illustrates a major component of Michael Bennet. Many politicians would say healthcare. But to him the criteria is a bill that can be presented quickly and healthcare cannot be crafted that quickly. In other words, instead of a good political answer, he took the restrictions of that case to heart and thought through what could be done that quickly. This is someone who focuses on accomplishment rather than a good sound bite.

Second, he did think for about a minute to come up with the alternative certification idea. So when he had to drop back to an instinctive from the gut proposal, he went to education. And he came up with something that is eminently doable and would provide a lot of bang for the buck. All in all a damn good answer. And I think a clear indication that once he has more time, education will be something he puts a lot of effort in to.

I think Michael Bennet has the potential to do great things in the Senate. Thoughtful, a boatload of varied experience, and someone who looks at things from a systemic point of view. Add in strong empathy for what people are going through and a joy in meeting voters. All in all, very very impressive. Plus he's incredibly personable.

I saw Michael again in the evening - My Dinner with Michael.

My sit down with Ed

I got the chance to sit down with Representative Ed Perlmutter this afternoon for what was one of the most interesting interviews I have conducted. Ed Perlmutter is a very impressive individual – and in a number of different ways. I now understand why he is so highly respected.

He had run out to get lunch when I arrived and comes in 5 minutes later with a McDonalds bag (clearly he does not have lobbyists buying him lunch). I was discussing the economy with his press secretary and he just joined the conversation. And we were then into a 10 minute conversation about the auto companies (details in a sec).

And we then hit a pause about 10 minutes in and he suddenly goes "hi, I'm Ed Perlmutter" and shakes my hand. This is a guy that hears a substantive conversation about what is going on in the economy and what we need to do and he just jumps in. Ed clearly is an individual who clearly puts addressing issues way before politicking. I think this is key to his productivity and effectiveness.

So back to the car companies. First he thinks GM will make it, but as a very different company.

Ed's background before Congress was as an attorney handling bankruptcies. So for 20+ years he handled companies that were in a world of hurt. And then he got elected to Congress leaving that behind him. And now he's… Working through what to do with companies that are bankrupt, even if they aren't filing for Chapter 11.

This is the House of Representatives using the power of a citizen legislature. Ed Perlmutter is placed on Finance and Barney Frank makes use of his background and puts him on working to figure out how to handle these companies (banks & auto) that are in psuedo-bankruptcy. Yes there are also a ton of legislative aides with boatloads of experience on this. But having someone who runs for election and sits on the committee and votes in the house who also has this experience is a giant plus.

He first talked about the initial time the auto executives came to Washington and how utterly clueless they were. Both clueless in the impression they made arriving by private plane and clueless in that they had nothing with them to detail out what they needed and why. And he was amazed that no one had told the execs beforehand that they needed to take a different approach.

When they returned he said they were much better prepared and that GM had done the best job of detailing what their condition is and what they needed to do. But even so, that they were not set to make the terribly difficult decisions necessary to survive.

He sees Rick Waggoner's firing as necessary both because the American people need to see someone face some consequences for the mess GM is in and because Waggoner still was working within the GM system rather than remaking the system as needed.

And then he was diving into the details of the problems the companies face. He sees GM as having some very good cars working their way through the design process. And he correctly identifies the major union problem not as the present day union contracts which aren't that bad, but the old contracts which saddle the companies with horrendous costs for their retired workers.

And the significant costs of having way too many dealers plus franchise laws in 40+ states that make it virtually impossible to drop a dealer. (Business owners sure hate government interference in the market – except when it benefits them.)

And with all that he dropped back to the need to take the companies through bankruptcy. By doing so the pensions can be reworked, the excess dealers can be dropped, the stockholders can be told sorry but you're gone, and the bond holders get converted to stock holders. He very clearly laid out the best approach to resolve this.

So will it happen? Not yet. There were not the votes for it – yet. But many were willing to consider it next. And he sees the Obama administration already going down this road. So we will end up there but people need to see that the alternatives don't work first because a lot of people are going to scream over this (this is my theory for the 2 step process, not Ed's).

So then we were on to the banks. This was covered in a bit less detail but again it is clear that he understands the details of their valuations and how that impacts their viability and lending. I asked him about mark to market and that led him into a long detailed discussion about why mark to market is a bad idea.

What impressed me here is that the banks are not Mr. Popular right now and yet he is ardently supporting eliminating mark to market and does so by diving in to the arguments for and against the three main ways of valuing assets, and why mark to market is the least sensible of the three for a bank that holds assets long term.

And he finished his long treatise with the statement that he will work to fully undo mark to market as the recent change only partially undid it. I think first off that he makes a very compelling argument (some say that if mark to market was in place in the '80s all of our banks would have been declared insolvent). But even more impressive, he volunteered, in great detail, a position that is not that popular right now. Ed Perlmutter is focused on what he thinks is best for the country, not what is best for Ed Perlmutter's reelection.

Interesting side note, he comes home every weekend but stayed in D.C. recently one weekend because the economy is so critical. He spent Saturday in the Supreme Court law library (where they apparently rarely see a Congressman) researching how bankruptcy law can be used now and the possibility of a specific law for auto manufacturer bankruptcy.

Then Sunday he went to where a group of House and Senate staff were discussing how to legislate for this. And he sat down in the cheap seats and listened. Again, he is a Representative and he sat in the background and listened to the staff discuss. This shows an incredible level of respect for the staff and a desire to listen and learn first.

And then after a while he did speak up, to say he liked what the Senate staff was proposing more than the proposals from the House staff. And that carries a lot of weight because he clearly was listening to both sides rather than just backing his team. This is what gets the congressional staff to listen to you and use your arguments when preparing legislation.

Many times over the course of the interview Ed would discuss lobbying the staff to get what he wanted in the bills they craft for the committees because that gives a better chance of passage than if you try to get it added after. But as he said – it's a lot of work. He also discussed how you oh so carefully craft bills so they go to your committee, and only your committee. This is the grimy invisible grunt work required to be a really effective junior legislator. No one knows if you do it or not, so it comes only from wanting to be effective in the job.

I asked him what his top priorities were for the next 2 years – and this is where Representative Ed Perlmutter showed himself to be superlative. Because his top priority is to see his two daughters graduate, one from High School and one from College. And he talked quite a bit about both – definitely the very proud father.

This is a guy who truly understands what's most important in life, and volunteers that information. It's not saving the economy or the environment or… It's his family. It's 'Ohana and that is a wonderful thing to see. I think it also makes him a better legislator because he's going to fight for legislation that makes the world a better place as he has 2 daughters that are living in this world.

His next item was green legislation. This clearly is where his heart is, but is second right now while the economy has to be fixed. But it is a very close second. A lot of discussion about legislation he had worked on for some time that got added to the stimulus bill. This had not occurred to me (it should have – stupid on my part) but most (all?) of the stimulus bill was various legislation that had been in process and either not passed both houses or was still in committee.

But it was detailed legislation that had been through the sausage factory and worked on, discussed, revised, and packaged up in a way that was acceptable to many. So the stimulus bill was a collection of well thought out legislation, not a bunch of stuff thrown together in a month or so. I think this makes it a lot more likely that the stimulus bill items will work out well.

Ok, so we got the weatherizing and renewable energy for HUD housing in the stimulus bill due to Ed. And the rail part was in, then moved to the rail transportation bill – again thanks to Ed. (And I think there is a 3^rd item I'm forgetting.) Anyways, in and moving forward.

But a remaining part that I think makes a lot of sense is legislation he is moving forward to have renewable energy and public transportation proximity in a residence provide a discount in mortgage payments. The purpose here is to encourage people to green their homes both through the house itself (using less energy, having renewables on the roof) and through the location (take more public transportation, drive less).

And the beauty of this is that this discount should occur because these items have been shown to both protect the value of a house and decrease the likelihood of a default. Residences close to subway stops have lost almost none of their value in this market while those out in the suburbs have tanked. Green-ed houses have lost less of their value and owners of them have been less likely to default.

And then we were on to the VA hospital. Ed thinks General Shinseki is awesome (I agree – and have heard the same from many in the military). Some of the earlier VA administrators he clearly would have liked to strangle due to their delays in getting us the VA hospital. Ed has clearly put in a lot of effort and gone through a lot of heartache to help get this built.

I also think if they are about to break ground, the equipment is out there, and something holds it up – don't be surprised if he hotwires an earthmover and just starts breaking ground himself. He clearly is very focused in they need to start yesterday, both because it is so needed and he does not want to see yet another delay.

He says that General Shinseki has committed to getting this going soon. So we should see it start in 90 – 120 days.

There was a bit more discussed. I asked him about the politics side and other stuff, but that was more of a two-way conversation. He clearly is very politically astute and zeroed in on a couple of things I brought up. Don't let the fact that his heart is on the legislative side worry you – this guy knows how to run and how to win.

I did not ask him about his future plans. He clearly loves the House and I can see him happily staying there. And if he does his emphasis could be in a number of areas. I can als see him running for Governor and I think he would also do well in that position. On the flip side, his history shows he is not desperate to be in office and he is not incessantly climbing. So he might also go do something else.

Personally I hope he stays in office – the country needs people like him right now. Definitely a superb Congressman.