Liberal and Loving It

Dan Maes Interview

Dan is not an experienced politician. It's not just that he hasn't run for office before, it's that he is new to the system. This is rare at this level. He also comes across as a credible competent candidate – so don't discount him because he's new to this. He lacks the political connections (and the funding resources that come with it) but he's got political skills and is resonating with the base.

(So let's talk Dan's odds as that's question #1 on everyone's mind. In a normal year his lack of connections and funding would make this a futile quest. But with the tea partiers having stronger support than the Republican party, and Dan having the enthusiastic support of those tea partiers, he's got a shot. The giant question is – will enough of them show up at the caucuses to put him way ahead of Scott McInnis? And as with anytime there is a large group that normally doesn't participate in the process – we won't know until we see the turnout & count the votes.)

On to the interview…

Dan is a successful businessman who has built up and sold several companies. He brings this approach to how he would run the state. He's not a Republican or Conservative so much as he's a business executive. A lot of his focus is on improving how the state operates and taking a businesslike approach to decision-making. Yes he's a conservative and yes he's responding to the people he talks to. But at core he's a business guy who wants to improve how the state operates.

He's running because he thinks Governor Ritter is doing a terrible job, especially with the Oil & Gas regulations that he has imposed. Dan believes that the regulations have drastically reduced the amount of drilling, and therefore the number of jobs, in Colorado. He also sees the state bureaucracy as being inefficient, over compensated, and over staffed compared to other states, and especially compared to private enterprise.

That's half of it. But while he was (mostly) true to the 11^th commandment, he also spoke to the issue that he did not see anyone on the Republican side stepping up who would address these issues. His concern is that the Republicans need a candidate who will tell the voters what they believe and what they will do. Dan has a businessperson's contempt for a person who speaks in vague generalities and does not make commitments as to what they think and what they will do. (Having worked in high tech companies my whole life I'm 100% with Dan on this – people who won't give clear opinions and commitments annoy the snot out of me.)

He wants to make Colorado a more business-friendly environment. On Oil & Gas his first step would be to eliminate all of the regulations that Ritter brought in to place. He believes that these regulations have caused a significant depression in drilling in this state, starting on the day Ritter was elected.

He also wants to encourage Aerospace and High-Tech small businesses in the state. As the owner of a small high-tech company I asked him what that help would be. He flipped it and asked me what I want from the state. When I couldn't think of anything he then replied that the best thing the state could do then was just not bother us. So this is a focus for him, but nothing specific in mind (yet).

He did bring up a case of the IRS fining one of his companies because a form was filed a day late. No taxes were owed, but the form was late and so the fine was levied. Small actions like this that an individual personally faces can have significant impact on their view. To a person running a business this becomes the face of the government – and they are acting in a way they find unfair.

This then shot in to a very interesting point. Dan has had numerous small business owners tell him that the additional taxes they pay when hiring an additional employee are a disincentive to hiring and therefore the government should give a tax break for additional hiring. I didn't understand this at first because I thought he meant the additional taxes on the additional profit from that person was what they were upset about. No. They view the payroll taxes they pay when they hire a person as additional taxes on them and that those additional taxes are a reason to not hire a person.

I replied as a business owner that this made no sense to me. An employee costs me X dollars between salary, taxes, benefits, etc. and if I make more than X from hiring them, then I make money. Dan said he personally sees it the same way, but that most of the small business owners he talks to do not. They view additional hiring as additional taxes they have to pay and those taxes are a disincentive to hiring. (In that the taxes reduce the ROI of hiring someone they are right. But you can say the same thing about paying someone well.)

What's interesting here is what this says about Dan as a politician. Dan views it differently, but most of his supporters do view this tax hit as a problem. And so Dan is looking to find a way to provide tax relief for additional hiring. This shows both that Dan does respond to the concerns of the voters (which is supposed to happen in a democracy) and that he then looks for solutions that will make the state better off (more jobs). I think this reflects very well on Dan – he's not telling everyone that he has all the answers, he's listening and responding to the concerns of his voters.

He would also like to see the business personal property tax repealed. This is universally unpopular because it is such a gigantic PITA. For many companies (like mine), it's not the amount, it's the effort to determine what is owed. Unlike many who want it repealed, but are limited by TABOR that they can't then have an increase elsewhere to make up the difference – he would just like to eliminate it and have the state live with the lower income.

This brought us in to the core approach of Dan Maes – reducing the cost of government. At the end of this part of the conversation I asked if there is anything the state is doing that it should stop doing (to reduce costs). Not do better, but just not do. He did not list anything that he thought we should not do although he said he probably would find one or two programs that don't make sense (couldn't we all). But the bottom line is he is not looking to have the state do less, he's looking to have the state operate more efficiently – big difference.

He stated flat out that he would not reduce spending on corrections (I should have asked if this meant this part of the state was very efficiently run) and he talked about pointing more money in the general fund back to transportation. So the big hit in his cutting 4,000 employees promise would come from K-12, higher-ed, and health services. He believes that he can cut 1,000 employees from higher-ed without it impacting the colleges in this state.

Here's the crux of both the strength and weakness of a candidate from Dan's background. Is the state inefficiently run? Absolutely. Governments are generally less efficient than private enterprise. And in private enterprise there is a range of efficiency based on industry and company. When I worked at Microsoft I found it to be inefficient, bureaucratic, and slow compared to the start-ups I worked at. But back then it was easily one of the most efficient large company in the world. All organizations sit somewhere on a continuum.

So could the state do with 4,000 less people? If you fired the right 4,000 people the state would probably be more efficient. If you made systemic changes, that would have even more impact. There are gigantic savings that could be brought about. On the flip side, governments are not slow, inefficient, and bureaucratic because the people at the top want them to be so. It's the nature of the beast. Effecting real change in an operation like this is incredibly difficult and takes time (and getting a lot of people on board) – that's the cost of a democracy.

The strength of an individual like Dan is they will work to improve things a lot more than any career politician will. And we need this. Without these constant efforts, the state will become even less efficient. The weakness of an individual like Dan is he will first assume he can effect change as rapidly and as major as he did at his company and will base his other decisions on that substantial change. It will take a bit of time for him to learn that the fact something makes complete sense does not mean it's going to happen.

He did speak about working diligently to reduce the cost of government and then with those savings, reduce the tax burden. In no way did he very come across as a Norquist/Bruce drown the government in a bathtub type. He is looking to reduce the cost of what the state presently does to thereby reduce the taxes needed to provide the existing services.

I then asked if there was anywhere in the state where he would like to see additional services. (This was clearly a new question for him – I don't think his base ever asks that.) This was the other very interesting part – he would put more money into law enforcement, specifically illegal aliens. He says this is by far the #1 issue brought up by the people he talks to. So while the rest of us have forgotten about this issue, it is still gigantic for the tea party base. (And for the life of me, I have no idea why.)

He said the economy comes a distant second in terms of interest. But that his priorities are the economy/jobs first with illegal immigration a close second. This is illustrative of how Dan Maes takes the concerns of the voters into account, but also uses his own judgment as to how to prioritize.

I asked about education and he said that almost never comes up. He pointed out that the age of his base is older and so very few still have children in K-12. They are much more likely to have grandchildren in school. He did speak about the low graduation rate in our public schools and that that needs to be addressed.

So what do we get with Dan Maes. I let the candidate drive the conversation in the first interview so we see what they choose to talk about. On energy he'll roll back the O&G regulations – and did not say anything about renewables. On education, he listed the poor job our public schools are doing, but that was it aside from cost cutting there. He does support law enforcement, incarceration, & transportation at existing or higher levels. Health & welfare services were not mentioned.

Dan is a thoughtful intelligent guy who speaks clearly to the issues. He has strong support from a base many of whom are scared, upset, etc. But while Dan speaks for that group, he himself is optimistic & positive – and I think that speaks well of the tea partiers who support him. And for Dan Maes, if you get elected, I leave you with this thought…

"He'll sit here, and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating." – Harry Truman [after Eisenhower won]

podcast: DanMaes Interview

One key requirement of “Representative” Government

I think one absolutely critical requirement for our government to function is for our representatives to listen to the voters. To all of them. Without this ongoing feedback our elected officials become a body divorced from the people, swayed primarily by the few who have access to them. When that happens we lose something precious and vital about what makes America work.

It is true that we were initially designed as a Republic where the President and Senators were elected indirectly. But from the beginning the House was elected directly. And the assumption, and practice, from the beginning was that all of our elected officials were accessible to anyone. Through all of the 1800's most anybody could talk to the President if they wanted to.

Why is this so important? A couple of reasons:

1. Without constant ongoing feedback from the voters, all the voters, it is impossible for an elected official to represent us. Yes they can read the polls, run surveys, get summations of incoming letters. That has a minimal impact compared to interacting with the voters. Direct two-way communication is essential – both for the politician and for their constituents. The impact on constituents is every bit as important as the impact on the officeholder.
2. This shows us if the individual will fight for us. Someone who is afraid to discuss issues with people that might disagree with them is not going to slug it out in the sausage factory. When Tom Tancredo ran away from a news discussion when asked a single snarky question by Markos, he made it painfully clear that he does not have the intestinal fortitude to actually accomplish anything in office.
3. Clear concise answers to hard questions is where the rubber meets the road. All politicians love to say lower taxes, more services, and a balanced budget. If they are not confronted with the hard questions, that is all we'll hear (from both sides). Only when we push do we learn how they will actually solve the issues we face. Because in the triangle of lower taxes, more services, and a balanced budget – you get to pick two.
   And it's not just this one issue. On question after question, God is in the details. Want to address illegal immigration? Great. How do you better seal the border? How do you reduce the economic rewards to foreigners and Americans for breaking the law? What is the appropriate number of guest workers and what are the requirements for them? The list goes on – and only by asking do we see if someone has answers or is just hot air.
4. G.W. Bush showed us the danger of having a leader who lives in a bubble surrounded by yes-(wo)men. True interaction with people who disagree with you is uncomfortable and can cause political problems. However, it's the only way to have your ideas face critical scrutiny. And when that scrutiny is avoided, you end up with minor problems like the Iraq War.

What's also interesting is that when it comes to the hard questions, most voters across the political spectrum have the same questions. We will differ in what answer we prefer, but we all want to find out where a candidate stands on these core issues. There are not questions from the left and other questions from the right – there are questions from all the voters.

We're in a world of hurt right now. At the federal level we still have a horrendous problem with jobs & the economy. We need to address the intertwined mess of energy/foreign oil/global warming. We're fighting two hot wars as well as the more difficult nebulous global war on terror. Healthcare will remain a major problem, even if (especially if according to some) the bill is passed. The list of major problems goes on.

And at the state level we face the issue of declining revenues in a time of increased demand for services. When the federal stimulus funds end next year, we stop funding higher ed (thereby devastating our future). We have a financial convoluted straitjacket in our constitution that is driving us off a cliff. And our K-12 educational system (as is true in every other state) is a disaster that presently insures that China, India, and others will surpass us, leaving us a 2^nd world country.

We need to determine if the people asking for our vote have what it takes to address these problems. That means we have individuals who will talk to us, will answer the hard questions, and give us answers that lead us to believe they can resolve these issues.

Lets first look at who fails on this count – Representative Lamborn and Senator Udall (at least they can take joy in their bi-partisan issuing of the middle finger to the voters). They both reside in their fortress of solitude, venturing forth only to cast votes and ask for donations. Senator Udall tries to fake it, by making surprise visits to public groups that his team has swept to insure that he will hear no disagreeable opinion – and then issuing a press release about his "public meeting." Even if we like their votes, that doesn't mean they represent us.

Now let's look at those who embrace the concept of interacting with the voters. That doesn't mean they go talk to every single voter, as there are not enough hours in the day, and many voters have no interest. But it does mean town halls, talking to a wide range of press, bloggers, issue groups etc – and not just the ones that like you. By far the best example of this is Representative Polis. When the town hall craziness occurred in August, Jared scheduled more town halls because he saw it as a chance to talk to more voters.

Second is Ken Buck. I sat down with him one time to ask him a bunch of question. I was worried that he would get mad at me, or refuse to give me real answers. What occurred was that on every single question he calmly gave me a clear detailed answer. It went so smoothly I re-read the questions after it was over to make sure they were "hard-hitting." Ken views questions as a chance to tell the voters where he stands.

Third is Governor Ritter. In my Q&A with the Governor it was scheduled for ½ hour and he kept it going for an hour – and then apologized that he had to go to his next event. Yet on many of the questions I asked, Bill Ritter was clearly not pleased that the issue was coming up again. But when Bill Ritter is unhappy about being asked on an issue – he responds by giving you full detail as to what & why. Again, someone who insures that the voters knows where he stands.

I do not mean to denigrate others by not listing them. Most of our top elected officials, to a greater or lesser degree, do talk with a full cross-section of voters, press, bloggers, etc. We are better off from this interaction and they do their job better due to this interaction.

But for those challenging the incumbents, I think it is imperative that we insist that they do the same. If in the campaign they avoid those that might subject them to an uncomfortable question, how on earth can they do a competent job when elected? I'm not asking if I will agree with them, I'm asking the more basic issue of simple competence regardless of political philosophy. If a candidate is incapable of performing the job well, does their politics matter much?

And by the same token, if a candidate will not give a real answer to the fundamental questions that voters across the spectrum want answered, do they stand for anything? If they don't stand for anything, we don't know what we will get. A person who will say anything to get elected, will do anything once they are in office. I've voted for Republicans before, rarely because I agreed with them, but generally because I will take a principled conservative over an opportunistic liberal.

My concern is that many (not all!) of the challengers in this state are trying to give vague answers, avoid challenging forums, and generally slide in to office without ever standing for anything. This does not serve the state well, it does not treat the voters with respect, and it is not representative government. Or to give a more specific example, how effective a Governor can Scott McInnis be if he's afraid to answer questions from press & bloggers who don't adore him? What approach will he take as Governor if he will not answer the basic questions that voters from the far right to the left want an answer to?

We're in a world of hurt and in '10 I am not voting straight Democratic – I am voting in each race for the person who I think will best help us get out of this mess. That person is not the one with a nice smile, but no willingness to fight and unable to articulate what they stand for.

Dear Representative McInnis

Hi;

I know you're very busy and all. I'm disappointed that you do not have time to sit down with me for an interview to give me, and the people who read my blog, a chance to find out what you want to do as Governor. But hey, there are only 24 hours in a day.

The thing is, with the economy in the toilet, who we elect as Governor matters - a lot. We, and by we I mean all of us voters, need to know what you will do. As I told one major Democratic officeholder - who we elect right now is too important to vote based on party identification. I am voting for the individual who I think will do the best job.

Now I know you would prefer to answer these questions after you are elected. But in these perilous times, we can't afford to buy a pig in a poke. We need to hear from you now. Besides, it's just not very Governor-ial of you to hide - we need a Governor who will stand up and address the problems we face.

I don't think you can responsibly ask any Colorado citizen for their vote until you have given us direct and specific answer to the following questions. I hope even Dick Wadhams will expect solid answer to the following before he promises you his vote. Because we voters must select the candidate who is best for the state and the country.

1. Where exactly will you cut the budget to balance it? If you say eliminate waste & inefficiency, please identify where that is as there is no line item in the budget with that description.
2. Do you support the proposed ballot initiatives that will further reduce the state budget? If so, again what specifically will you cut if those initiatives pass?
3. Where do you stand on FASTER? And is that stand subject to future (daily) changes?

Yes the state could be better managed - Ritter's good but he's not perfect. Yes we can find more sensible approaches to what the government provides (starting with K-12 schools).

But the fact is Ritter is doing a good job. And you need to convince us you can do better. Because face it, most of the primary major causes of the world of hurt we are in today are due to inept Republicans from George Bush to Doug Bruce.

If you want our consideration, we need real answers from you. If you can't do it now, how on earth will you be able to do it for real as Governor. And if you can't deliver as Governor, then how can you even ask for our vote?

thank you
David Thielen

ps - The offer of the interview still holds. I think if you have what it takes to be Governor, you should be able to handle an hour with me.

Morgan Carroll Interview

I got the chance to interview Morgan Carroll yesterday. How someone can be that positive & energetic after years in the sausage factory is amazing. And in the unusual (unique?) category, her entire discussion was about increasing participation in the legislative process by citizens without a word about Morgan Carroll. Not even a word about her specific legislation. Nothing about her at all until I started asking her some questions that drove the conversation that way.

So the first 20 minutes or so were about participation – and how legislation is poorer for a lack of any participation by the voters. The average bill gets zero comments from citizen. Most of the rest get one. Now granted, some of the legislation is a snore-fest but still, this is not participatory democracy.

Now, citizens don't participate but the lobbyists sure do. This was a real eye-opener to her when she first started in the legislature. She at first was wondering who are all these people and why are they affecting my legislation. Morgan sees this problem not as one of the individual lobbyists, but a system where the legislators are term limited, but the lobbyists are not. Where a legislator makes 35K/year while a lobbyists makes 35K/mo. Where the legislators have little to no staff while the lobbyists have substantial staff. It's a very lopsided power structure.

And her list went on. One biggie is the legislators are having to work through 800 bills while a lobbyist is focused on 8. That difference in mind share is a tremendous advantage. You also have the lobbyists funding campaigns, controlling many endorsements, etc. In many cases all of the substantial research on a bill comes from the lobbyists because they're the only ones with the staff to perform the research. This even reaches the extent where lobbyists will write a bill and then look for a legislator to introduce it.

To counter this she wants to see the legislature do a better job of reaching out to people, letting them know what is going on, letting them how they can testify on each bill. Morgan says she has seen votes flip when citizens, even a few, show up and testify on a bill. Constituents have a lot of potential power, but rarely exercise it.

The lobbyists are there on each bill, but plain old constituents, rarely seen. Yet the voters have a lot more influence that the lobbyists when they choose to exercise it. Senator Carroll's biggest example of this is the eminent domain where the lobbyists (all from the developer & construction industry) said that eminent domain was fine with everyone. But there were a number of voters who showed up opposed to eminent domain – and they got the bill flipped to restrict when it can be used.

She also talked about how critical it is for legislators to read every bill. She's one of the few in the legislature who does this (in Hawaii I think my mom is the only one who reads each bill in full). But for the others, just taking the summation, in many cases they are voting the opposite of how they would vote if the understood the details. (Part of this is getting legislators to actually read the legislation. But equally important is getting voters to look at it as then you have other eyes reading the legislation in full.)

Morgan said this is why she does not leave the floor to talk to lobbyists, because when the amendments are brought up you need to be on the floor reading the amendments and figuring out what that does to the legislation. She is worried that people will be upset with her for this practice – I told her on the contrary, the voters respect her for this and wish the other legislators would follow the same practice. (If you appreciate the fact that she doesn't leave the floor for lobbyists, please shoot her a fast note at [email protected])

{next 30 minutes off the record – and hence no recording} We got into a discussion about new ways to bring about citizen participation on legislation. Morgan is very open to trying to make effective use of the web and a lot of this could have a significant impact on what legislation is passed and how it is amended. I don't want Republicans, and lobbyists (but I repeat myself), seeing what is coming. So we'll have to wait and see during this upcoming session if the Democratic legislators implement these ideas – and if so how effective it is.

{back on the record} – I asked Ms. Carroll if she will be running for Governor in 4 years. She said that she would like to be governor someday but there is still a lot of legislation she wants to get passed and that can better be done in the Senate. She talked through the pros & cons and how she weighs it out so I think she is sincere in saying that she is not presently planning on running. But my guess is come 2013 she will face the decision of "now" or wait 8 more years – and will go for now (2014).

As to how good a governor she would be? If I had to pick today who I wanted taking over after Ritter's second term – I would easily pick Morgan. She is independent, smart, thinks for herself, fights for all of us, and wants to take Colorado into the future as a state that invests in its people. Equally important, she also has an incredibly positive high-energy personality that is perfect for the leader of a state.

Andrew Romanoff Interview

The Senate primary is shaping up to be the most boring primary ever. In my interview with Senator Bennet he said nothing about Romanoff. In this interview with Speaker Romanoff the little he said about Bennet was because I pushed him hard on this question.

So why is Speaker Romanoff running? He wants to get in there and make substantive improvements. He talked at length about the need to find ways to accomplish and solve the problems we face.

I asked specifically, why should we consider "firing the incumbent?" And in that I stated that yes Bennet was appointed and had not been elected yet, but nonetheless he was viewed as the incumbent by most. The Speaker's first reply was that while he respects & supports the Governor's right to fill in the seat - "there are another 3 million registered voters in the state who have not had any chance to weigh in…" Andrew then went on to discuss in general terms how he will make a great Senator bringing his effort, passion, etc. to the office.

Romanoff then talked about the widespread support he has throughout the state for the job he did in the legislature and the support he had to be appointed by Governor Ritter. (I want to stress that at no time, including this time, did Romanoff in any way speak or act like he deserved the appointment or the seat. He brought up these examples as independent validation of how good a job he will do if elected.)

Ok, so I tried from a different angle – I listed out that who is in office will differ in terms of: how you vote, how effective you are, where you focus, and/or constituent service. I then asked on which of those, what will be different if we have Senator Romanoff? He then came back with what I thought was one of his best insights in the interview.

He pointed out that in the healthcare debate we started off on the 50 yard line and so of course we were left playing defense the entire way. He would have started the debate with universal coverage, etc. He went in to the same thing with climate change. For much of legislation, the process defines the final result and I think Andrew Romanoff has a strong argument that he has a lot of experience and skill in structuring the process for maximum advantage.

On the climate issue I took him off on a tangent when I asked if the big issue here has Congress, or the American people. He then discussed the interplay of companies running PR campaigns and lobbying, how that impacts the view of the people and the Congress, and all of that impacts what can be done. He has a good understanding of how all these forces interplay.

He also talked about how a lot of lobbying is really access – giving lobbyists a chance to talk regularly with Senators. And that regular discussion gives them more chances to discuss (and persuade) Senators to their point of view. And regular people don't get this same opportunity – so advantage corporations. He summed it up by saying there's no "silver bullet" here but it is incumbent upon the Senate to show leadership on issues like this.

I next asked him who will be his campaign manager. He said there will be an announcement "very soon." (I suggested this interview was the perfect venue.) He then listed the very large numbers of people who have stepped forward to volunteer (150 people at one volunteer event), but that they did not have the paid infrastructure in place to take full advantage of it at first. He also talked about his travelling across the state to meet people.

I asked if he has a campaign manager at present and he wouldn't answer. So I gave him my personal opinion that to win he must have a campaign manager who is running the campaign and who can get in his face and tell him what he needs to do. His reply was that "he agrees with what I'm saying." So what is the situation today, and what will it be shortly – your guess is as good as mine. My guess is they are putting the final pieces in place and hope to be at this point ASAP – but have either not made their final decisions or are waiting for a yes from one or two people.

Afghanistan – he spoke plainly & directly to the fact that Al Qaida means us harm, has done us harm, and we need to handle them. He also said that the problem is in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He also spoke of the core problem being the Karzi government in Kabul does not have trust of the Afghan people. He wants us to have clear and specific goals in Afghanistan. (I did not ask what those goals should be – my mistake.)

The Speaker next talked at some length on the importance of thanking our veterans for risking life & limb is to support them when they return – with jobs, with medical care, with mental health care, etc. He was very passionate on this topic. Romanoff then talked about the need to bring democratic institutions to these countries. Andrew was sent to Nigeria as part of a program to help train the legislators there on how to effectively govern, and how to use the balance of power to deliver a stronger democracy.

He also brought up a very insightful point – that education & opportunity for girls & women is absolutely critical for the success of liberal democracy. As such, we should be doing everything we can to promote both in poor countries. He is spot-on for how critical, central, and necessary this is – I wish more politicians would take this to heart.

I next asked about the issue of hundreds of billions for Wall St while nothing for Main St. His first reply was that we need to free up credit for small companies (that is definitely everyone's first response to this question). He also spoke to the fact that he has heard that same question from everyone.

He then switched to talking about the jobs programs under FDR, bringing up the example of a citizen who's first job was in the CCC and they still remember it with great fondness for what it taught them as well as the income. I'd say this shows that to Andrew what the government should be doing to help Main St. is to provide jobs. He also pointed out that we need a lot of work performed in this country so we're all better off if we create these federal jobs.

I asked about pushing many of the unemployed into college to both train them for the future and to lower the number looking for work. The Speaker was very clear that people who are unemployed need jobs. He talked about how college enrollment rises at times like this, but what we need to do is put people back to work.

He then brought up a core issue we face for workers – that a High School diploma is no longer sufficient for economic success. He also pointed out that it's critical to the future economic success of this country to have a highly educated workforce. (What's interesting here is he sees this as a critical issue for the country, and for the people without a college degree – but he does not see federal college assistance as way to both improve the country and reduce unemployment.)

I then gave him the question Obama got the other day – "how about increasing taxes by legalizing gambling, drugs, & prostitution." To that we got Speaker Romanoff's one word answer – No. I asked for details and he discussed how in Colorado we do have some gambling. On drugs he discussed the serious drug abuse levels we have in this state. And for prostitution he discussed how this has historically been awful for women. (Better answer than Obama gave – IMHO.)

I then asked about Too Big To Fail. Andrew talked about bringing more transparency to the banks. He then discussed about teaching students fiscal literacy and expecting fiscal responsibility of individuals. This is an interesting answer as the giant problem was not so much the sub-prime mortgages as the way those were then packaged, sliced, and then sold – again and again and again.

I then asked about the concept of breaking up the TBTF banks and this was something that was new to him. I think on this topic Romanoff's knowledge is pretty light. We can't expect our Senators to know everything, but I personally believe this is one we should expect some depth on. My guess is he will be learning a lot more on this quickly as I won't be the last one to ask on this issue.

Conclusion

So what do we have with Speaker Romanoff? If neither candidate was an incumbent, I think we would have a pretty even contest based on the merits of each. But that's not the case and wishful thinking won't make it so. Fairly or unfairly (because Bennet was appointed, not elected) most people consider Senator Bennet the incumbent. And therefore Speaker Romanoff needs to speak to that specific question – and have a compelling argument as to why he is different (and better) enough for us to boot Bennet out.

With that said, Andrew is knowledgeable, intelligent, effective, and a class act. I would be absolutely thrilled to have him as my Senator. As I'm also thrilled with Bennet (most days) and a constructive primary helps us Dems – either way we Dems (and the State of Colorado) wins.

podcast of interview: Download AndrewRomanoff

Note to Jadam12

I tried to reply to your post on the Camera website but commenting is hosed up there again and it just freezes. So here's hoping you see this.

You said:

Look, I get it. I've worked in the private sector and in the public sector. What I didn't find in the private sector was parents and higher level administrators/politicians blaming the teachers for everything, especially when both sides have differing ideas about how things should be done. Just in case you have ever wondered why the teachers (not the administration) may not be ready to jump a mile for your cause in every situation.

However, I do find that teachers in general (myself included) are willing to help and work with you well beyond what is contractually required, even on an individual basis. If you went to a union meeting, which is composed entirely of teachers, not some detached group of mafia thugs, you'd more than likely find people wiling to listen and provide strong support.

Does the union (the teachers) think that poor performing teachers should be let go. Absolutely! Truly poor performing teachers are eqaully annoying in the workplace.

Do teachers want to have better performance and lower drop out rates. Absolutely! It's why we go to our jobs.

My reply is:

We probably agree on a lot of the specifics (although a lot of people sure blamed the unions for the bankruptcy of the car companies). But yes, a lot of teachers do a great job, a lot of teachers work beyond what is contractually required (although that also is a concept most other professionals don't have as we don't have a contracted number of hours).

But here's the big place we differ. You discuss about how lots of people are doing their best, many have good intentions, and so this is the best we can do.

I look at it and see a system that is an abject failure and as a country we cannot afford to have half our poor students drop out when the vast majority of well paying jobs require a college degree.

You are like General Motors saying "we're doing the best that can be done." I'm saying that if the best leads to failure, then we need to radically change the system. If you guys (teachers, administrators, mouthpieces like Linda Shoemaker) can't deliver the educational system this country needs - then people from the outside will impose radical change.

Because the present path is gaining more and more people demanding an alternative that works. My guess is we'll end up with a combination of vouchers and charter schools and the existing public schools will all be flipped to one of those two models.

If you have a reply to this, please comment here and I will comment back. The commenting on my blog works.

Thanks - dave

Michael Bennet Interview

The Senate moves with all due deliberation. The federal government changes direction slowly. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it is bad, oftentimes it is frustrating. But our government was designed to change slowly and in this the founding fathers were very effective.

Michael Bennet is a Senator. And the thing that most struck me in this interview is that he talks about what can be done, and how items need to be accomplished. Not a word railing against the constraints of the system but instead straightforward discussion of getting the job done. Senator Bennet's approach will tend to be less satisfying to those that want major changes, and want them now. But his approach will also make him a much more effective Senator. I prefer effective.

On to the interview. This was over the phone as the Senate is in session this weekend and so Michael is stuck in D.C. And it was just ½ hour long (actually 35 minutes). I haven't interviewed over the phone before and it does reduce the level of communication. It is a much more cut & dried conversation.

We started on Afghanistan. This was a long discussion which pretty much mirrored President Obama's speech at West Point. Michael does acknowledge that the real fight is occurring in Pakistan and that is being conducted by the Pakistani Army. That the job in Afghanistan is to not let the terrorists retreat from Pakistan to Afghanistan which would then eliminate the effectiveness of the fight in Pakistan.

He then discussed how the present effort is very limited in scope. It is focused in the South & East, it is working with the local governments (because of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the central government), and it is limited to building up an honest & effective police force and otherwise providing security. He even specifically called out that this is not about building schools and other "nation building" efforts. (Even the limited effort, I think, qualifies as nation building – although on a more limited scale.)

He clearly does have well informed view of the situation there and spoke bluntly of the problems. A critical step 1 is to have a clear picture of the problem. Senator Bennet does have that and speaks of the situation as it is. He also said multiple times that Congress needs to "hold the administration accountable" while watching their efforts on an ongoing basis.

Next was the question about why we gave the large banks everything they wanted, but have nothing substantive for everyone else. Michaels's reply was to discuss the needs for credit to be loosened up for small business. This seems to be the conventional wisdom in D.C. right now – that the big issue for the economy is to get credit to small businesses, and from that there will be more jobs created. I agree this is needed (at my company we have to pay our credit card bills every 2 weeks because they won't give us a limit that can handle a month's worth of charges – and we have zero debt). But I don't think this is going to bring us out of recession.

On that note, I asked what are they doing in the Senate to address this issue as they keep talking about it, but we need action. Senator Bennet's reply was "they [the White House] seem to have finally got it because they had their jobs summit this week and we'll have to see what comes out of that." I am disappointed that I heard nothing else on this issue – not even thoughts on things they might consider to address the economy.

Note: Every interview, after it ends, I think of one question I should have asked. For this one I should have asked him how we're going to address the Craigslist effect. Ten years ago the newspaper classified industry probably supplied 100,000 jobs. Craigslist with 28 people eliminated those jobs. How do we find jobs for all the cases where massive numbers of jobs are eliminated with new technology.

I then asked Senator Bennet if he was too tied to the financial industry to be willing to address the changes needed. He came back speaking with great emphasis that he is not worrying about protecting Wall St. He then read me the statement he put out on this issue (the one time in the conversation he was reading from a script). His concern is the community banks that did not cause this problem, are by and large not an issue, and he doesn't want them "to have a series of regulations that further constrain their lending."

He also discussed how his financial background is a benefit as it lets him better understand what happened. And he called out the disaster as being driven by "pure greed" on the part of the major banks. His desire is to address the "massive irresponsibility of the Wall St bank holding companies." He also wants to make sure we don't bring in regulations that cause problems while not helping.

We then went on to "too big to fail" and Bennet immediately launched in to the moral hazard of the bank rescue because we've now made it clear that the government does back the large banks which, by itself, will allow even greater risk taking. Here's where he had a very interesting choice of words, that "we need to put very onerous capital requirements on financial institutions that get to a size…" If Senator Bennet is in thrall to the big banks as some have claimed, I don't see why he would use phrases like this in passing. This is the phrasing of someone who is looking to bring in some real restraint on the system.

He sees the solution having two main parts. First that the TB2F banks will have significantly increased capital requirements. Second will be a fund used to handle the failure of any TB2F bank, self-funded by those same banks. He believes that this self-funding will cause the institutions to self police as they are the ones that will have to pay more into the fund if one of them goes belly-up. (I'm not sure the self-policing will do much to stop all of them racing off the cliff together.)

I then asked about full disclosure and transparency for the derivates market. He says we will have a clearinghouse model for most of them. But that there are some that don't fit this model and they will be handled differently. He believes they can stop people from trying to push everything through the exceptions case which don't have all the requirements.

He then brought up the very good point that the people who buy and sell derivatives are in favor of a clearinghouse as they will then get better pricing. He stated that the market has been opaque for no good reason. (Actually it was opaque for a very good reason – it let the banks make more handling the trades.)

Note: I did not ask him about his vote on cram-down because time was limited and I didn't think I would get a different answer from the other 40 times he's been asked the question.

Then on to healthcare. I asked if he thinks the public option will pass, and he thinks it will. He also thinks the chances of it passing are much better today than even 2 months ago.

I then asked about reducing what we spend on healthcare. Interesting answer – Michael then discussed the subsidies available to people to help them buy insurance. (That doesn't do squat to reduce what we spend as a country on healthcare, it just changes who pays for it.) He then brought up trying to move healthcare to pay for outcomes rather than procedures (this does reduce total costs).

He then discussed a number of proposals to give people more info about what procedures should cost, reducing administrative costs, etc. He further discussed the core issue – how well the administration implements the system. This is a giant piece of the puzzle and I think he is spot-on to bring this up as the biggest influence on costs.

I also asked about pharmaceutical research as that can bring us gigantic savings. He discussed a bill that helps pharma get a good return on their investments and does see this as a major solution to costs. But nothing else on this issue (I guess Senators can't be on top of every single aspect of every issue).

We were out of time so for the environment I asked what he personally thought cars will be running on in 10 years. He thinks fleet vehicles will be on natural gas and personal vehicles will be electric. (T. Boone Pickens will be pleased with that answer.)

On education I asked him what he thought of the idea of having a GI Bill type effort to pull a bunch of people out of the job market and push them in to college. He discussed the increases we have in Pell funding and how the colleges are full because so many more are going to college right now. He also spoke of the funding crisis state systems are facing, calling out Colorado & California specifically.

I closed asking when was the last time he went to one of the Smithsonian Museums. It was before he was a Senator. He once asked his scheduler if they ever got free time and she told him no. Personally, I think Washington would run a lot better if all of our Congresspeople would take an hour once a week to leave their cell phone in the office and wander the mall.

Conclusion

First off, what I never heard. There was not a single word that could be viewed as partisanship. I don't think he ever said the word Republican and maybe said Democratic once. He said Iraq was a mistake but aside from that not a word denigrating anyone. Even when I made a comment about the Bush Administration ineptitude, he didn't pile on.

Second, not a single word that could be construed as campaigning. He faces a serious primary challenger and a really bloody general challenge – and not a word about what a great job Michael Bennet is doing, how much we get from him, etc. He's not an idiot and I'm sure he is thinking about the campaign at least some of the time. But in over ½ hour of an interview – not a peep.

Which leads to what we have with Michael Bennet – a Senator who takes the responsibility of his job seriously, is working to be well informed on the issues they face, and is giving a lot of thought to those issues. He also speaks directly and honestly to those issues, and that is of tremendous benefit in having effective conversations about what we should do.

I do think the people who call him a Conservadem are off-base. He is definitely more of a centrist (as is the state of Colorado – outside of Boulder). But a lot of that "centrism" is his trying to determine what will work best, what makes financial sense, how can we afford what we want to do. A lot of that deserves the label of being grounded in reality more than anything else.

Full interview: Michael Bennet Interview podcast