Liberal and Loving It

Live Blogging Bennet’s Chamber of Commerce Speech

12:39 – All done. Thank you's from Mimi.

12:37 – Asked about tort reform and says while it should be addressed, points out that it does not help much and that Colorado already has great tort reform. Circles back to that no one wants to create something mediocre to get something passed fast. Speaks specifically to that and says he will insist (and believes we will get) legislation that brings substantive improvement.

12:33 – Points out that the present system of high costs is a tax businesses are paying today. Asked about get it right vs get it fast and points out that we have been working this since Teddy Roosevelt and so we need to get the things that work done, and done now. Does not want to see delay for delay's sake.

12:28 – Asked about the polarization of this discussion. Says he's disappointed that it is so polarized – especially as the cost curves show we must address this now. But he has no answer as to how to work together. (I know, I know!! – it's that the GOP is willing to screw the country for political advantage.) Circled back to what we need to do – no real answer on making it bi-partisian. Does ask that we demand of all elected politicos that they engage on the issues.

He's saying the right things but I hope he realizes that asking for the GOP to sit down and work this out is not going to happen.

12:23 – Asked about how to cut costs. He's diving into specific diseases and specific things we can do to for these diseases. He definitely has learned a lot on this subject. And that speaks well to the job he is doing as a Senator.

12:21 – skipped the last 3 slides. Spoke to the trade-off that the insurance companies will agree to allowing pre-existing, no dropping, etc. in return for getting all the uninsured (as many are people in their 20's). Bennet thinks the insurance companies are sincere in accepting that trade-off. Personally, I think they'll continue to try and game the system.

12:19 – good list of what needs to be addressed in the bill – standard basics on what insurance needs to do.

12:18 – "We should not pass a reform that does not deal with this [costs]. If we don't we aren't doing anyone any good."

12:10 – Now into reducing costs. Discussing how reducing costs is the most important steps we must take. Standard items on what to do. Asked for specifics and came up with Grand Junction's system. Spoke at length about changing the incentive system. (Also listed using technology better – yah!)

12:04 – Now on his key point – that healthcare takes 20% of our GDP while the rest spends under 10%. He wraps the fact that we can't compete and can't move forward if we have this boat anchor around our neck (my words, not his). What's fascinating about this is this is not a political speech. This is an economics professor discussing our economic situation. It's very powerful because he just lays out the facts and lets those facts speak for themselves.

The way he's talking makes it crystal clear that this is not a political stand for Michael. It's a logical necessity. I think this means this is something he is going to fight hard for. And not just fight for, but will absolutely insist on a system that will actually effect the needed change.

12:02 – Talking about median income down, healthcare & education costs shooting up. Middle class getting squeezed. The result has been people saving nothing and using equity to keep things going. Listing the idiodicy of the NY banks on this.

12:00 – Discussing how to get out. #1 is PAYGO with no exceptions. #2 create a bipartisan group to find places to cut.

11:58 – going into the causes of our current deficit which he is very even-handed about listing the Bush causes and the recent Obama initiatives.

11:54 – Michael Bennet is up. Invited questions during the speech – or even if someone just wants to say they disagree. Starting with financial basics – what is a deficit vs. debt.

11:52 – [Bill] - #2 Need to mandate individual (not business provided) coverage., #3 needs to be a level playing field – what he means is that if there is a public option it can't have an unfair advantage. #4 {didn't get it clearly}, #5 – take the time to get it right – lists out a litany of the fact that this is complicated.

11:50 – [Bill] - #1 we need to reduce costs significantly before adding people to the insurance roles.

11:49 – nothing else surprising on the polling. Bill Lindsay now up.

11:45 – Info on DMCoC polling about is healthcare a problem. "major problem" has dropped below "minor problem" – what's real interesting is they say this is likely due to people being unwilling to support the Dem plan and that affect their response. Could be but interesting that DMCoC chooses to list that as the sole reason for the change.

11:43 – We're starting!!! Mimi is giving an intro of Michael. Chuck Ward has not shown up yet (4^th name at the table). Questions are limited to Chamber members – no press questions. I wonder if I can join up right now?

11:40 – We are apparently waiting for a PPT to be loaded.

11:33 – Bennet is upfront getting fitted with 2 wireless mikes. Assume it's for 2 of the TV stations. Carey (Bennet's new media guy) is doing something at the podium. (I'm writing about all this little stuff because nothing's happening yet!)

11:30 – Back down to just Bill upfront. Micheal is at the back of the room talking to a couple of people. About 60, I would guess 20 are press, 10 are various DMCoC or Bennet people, and 30 are general audience.

11:26 – And he left. I assume he's looking for the people he's supposed to talk to beforehand. Mimi Roberson also now up front. She has no lunch and Bill is not sharing with her L

11:25 – Bennet walks in on his own – no entourage. Saying hi to a couple of people.

11:21 – Starting to fill up – maybe 20 people here. I think all of them so far are press. 4 spots up front and one of the speakers Bill Lindsay is up there eating lunch.

What’s with the Daily Camera comments

Ok, I assumed at first it was just software bugs that were causing comments to disappear in the articles. I had a couple of times where no comments displayed so there definitely are some technical issues.

But in today's letters section there has been complete deletion of all comments discussing deleted comments. They are definitely silently deleting any comments critical of the Camera.

So Daily Camera – what gives?

ps - This is not a free speech issue, the Camera has the right to delete any comments it wishes to. But I do think as a newspaper it has a responsibility (not a legal requirement) to tell the community how they are handling this.

Suzy Ageton Interview

I had lunch with Suzy Ageton today. I have to admit upfront that Suzy is my favorite councilmember. She is almost always a voice of reason when the discussion goes off into never-never land (a common occurrence here in Boulder). And that same grounding in reality and an instinct to use common sense was on display throughout lunch.

There was a common theme in what Suzy choose to discuss, and her approach to those problems. First, on every single topic, she was discussing trying to determine what would best solve each problem. It was one of the most apolitical discussions I have ever had with an elected official. And she showed a good grasp of the big picture questions on everything we discussed.

Second, she discusses everything in terms of what the voters will support. She didn't frame this as a good or bad (with one caveat next) thing, just as a key part of the process. This is good in that Suzy will not try and ram something through that the citizens of Boulder do not support. But it also means that she is unlikely to lead a push for something that is very unpopular.

She also touched on the fact that 5 active & energetic people can stop almost anything in Boulder from Washington School to the new bridge on 30^th St (the one with the trees). She did see that with the additional (and additional…) work that went in the final plan was better. But she clearly is somewhat frustrated by the extraordinary effort it takes to reach a decision on anything even slightly contentious in Boulder.

I asked her about the big problems facing Boulder and she sees two. The first is pops & scrapes. Her initial discussion was that she is searching for a sensible solution to the issue. She does not think one rule for all of Boulder makes sense. With that said, she does not have an answer to this problem. She's talking with a lot of people and listening to a lot of ideas, but none has struck her as a solution.

I then asked her about the issue of density vs. housing prices. She clearly sees that if we stay on our present course we will be a community for rich retired people plus a University. She says Austin is facing the exact same issue and is watching what they do to address it. We dove into some specifics on this and in each case, she does see the trade-offs, she does want to keep a middle class here in Boulder, but also in each case she discusses what the voters are willing to consider and how that limits the possibilities.

In other words, I think if there is a politically acceptable solution, Suzy will help drive it. But if the only way to keep a middle class in Boulder will require a council that gets way out in front of the voters (which I think is quite likely), it's not clear if Suzy would be onboard with that.

The second big issue she sees the city facing is the reduction in sales tax revenue. Again she shows a very good understanding of the problem, how sales tax sources are decreasing with more retail businesses locating outside the city and the changing demographics of the city also reducing money spent on taxed items. She also discussed how the only other tax sources available to the city are a head tax and increasing the business use tax – both of which will drive more businesses out of the city – which she realizes.

The best solution she sees here is revenue sharing with other localities in the area. I'll agree that that makes sense and is fair. However, I doubt the other cities & Boulder County are going to be willing to give up some of their revenue. They may be able to share on a specific new Wal-Mart store – but I think that's about it.

She also sort-of talked about how reduced income means Boulder is going to have to look at what services it provides vs. what it can afford. Politicians don't like telling people they get less (go figure) so I give Suzy props for discussing a bit about how they will have to start cutting if the sales tax picture does not improve. The bottom line here is she does understand the problem we are in, and that there does not appear to be a good answer.

What's interesting is that housing and sales tax revenue are tied together. If we had a growing middle class and strong retail sector, then we would have growing sales tax revenue. But as our population becomes older and wealthier, and our retail sector decreases, the sales tax decreases.

She then discussed the new fire training facility and how she had worked hard for years to get that in place. And she discussed that it is one of those things that doesn't get much attention, yet is very important. (I agree, the bottom line is lives will be saved because we have this.) This gets back to Suzy's core approach to the job – figure out what is needed and get it done.

Her last item that she wants to see fixed is to give the council the ability to go into executive session. This got interesting because I strongly opposed this in the last election, but said I would have supported it if the sessions were recorded and the recordings were always made public 6 months later. She said she thought the proposal included that (it didn't). Clearly she's fine with the recordings always being released 6 months later (except for personal issues), so we may see executive session proposed again in a way that will pass.

She would also like to see some other statutory changes which could help speed up council meetings. Although she did concede that elected officials like to talk and that was one of the biggest drivers of long council meetings.

Finally we discussed the lack of diversity on the City Council. I asked her what she thought of IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) and she had never heard of it. I described how it worked and how it will tend to give you a more diverse council and she found that interesting. Her initial reaction was would the voters find it a reasonable approach – again showing the key attribute of how Suzy approaches her job.

So what do we get with Suzy. We get someone who is focused on the key issues the city faces. Who does work on the important issue even if they aren't very sexy. Who is open-minded and is looking to find sensible workable solutions. And most of all, someone who views herself as a representative of the voter, looking to find solutions that the citizens of Boulder will support.

It's people like her that make the council work.

Questions for Representative Polis

I am interviewing Jared on Friday September 4. I'm trying something new as an experiment – if you have a suggested question please post it at davidthielen.uservoice.com. You then have 10 votes where you can vote for your, and other questions. I'll merge duplicates, eliminate the snarky ones, and then most, and possibly all of my main questions will be from the most popular items.

Jared's a high-tech guy and so I think he will find what is proposed this way interesting. I'm definitely curious to see how well this works. After all, I have no monopoly on brilliant questions to ask.

Jared, immediate family, and staff are not eligible to post questions or vote.

Tracking the Boulder City Council election

I've gotten a number of emails and this post regarding what am I going to cover in the upcoming Boulder City Council election. Well work is busy (the economy is not doing well) and that limits my time. On the flip side, I think what I wrote was of use. Now the results may be that most voters again blindly follow they Sierra Club directions – but if we don't support people making their own decision, then it will definitely continue to be an election determined by the Sierra Club. So…

My plan is to do the following:

1. Provide a central listing of all groups, individuals, media, etc that are writing regularly about the election. Providing numerous sources are one of the best ways to counter the Sierra Club vote monopoly.
   1. Which leads to a question. Should I include groups like Boulder Citizens that are anonymous? My concern is we will end up with "groups" that are a front for a candidate.
2. Interview all the candidates (who are willing to talk to me) and post the interviews here. I have a couple scheduled over the next couple of weeks. Any candidate who is not yet scheduled, please email me at [email protected] and we'll set it up. Usually lunch and I'm happy to buy.
3. Have an online debate like we did last election. I think it was one of the most informative resources on the candidates available. And it was a good measure of their being willing to answer questions they might be uncomfortable with.
   1. The tenative plan is to use www.uservoice.com and have people suggest and vote on questions. And then take the top 10 quality questions (ie drop the snarky ones).
4. I'm also going to write about how transparent the various interest groups are in their process of selecting who to support. Will we be told what they asked, what the candidates answered, and what their logic is on their picks? Or will we just get a list with no reasoning? With the Internet there is no reason for these groups to not be fully transparent – unless they have something they want to keep hidden.

So, thoughts, comments, suggestions?

Thanks - dave