Liberal and Loving It

Governor Ritter – The Last Four Years, and Some Thoughts on the Next Twenty

This was a very sad interview for me. Governor Ritter has done a superb job and I hate to see him go. We've been really lucky to have him as Governor. As always, he was very straightforward as he answered questions, both looking back at his term and looking forward at Colorado's future. So with that, on to the interview.

I started with pointing out that he's now had two jobs where you get no thanks for doing well, get pounded on for everything done poorly, and there are times where you can say yes, but the best thing to do is say no – and you get major drama. So my question is – which is harder, being a parent or Governor?

Governor Ritter replied that it's a tie. There are days when there's nothing better, and there are low moments. He went on to talk about how we appreciated the opportunity to serve as Governor and every day was a good challenge for him. He continued that he enjoyed it, although he did not enjoy the fundraising or politics parts. He then went on to discuss how he absolutely enjoyed moving the agenda forward and that requires politics to accomplish that.

The Governor went on to discuss how running for office is not a picnic anymore. But the governing part, the policy and thinking about the future of the state – that he has really enjoyed. He lit up when talking about being about to change where the state is headed.

I next asked about the Oil & Gas regulations. The Republicans claimed that the regulations had a major impact on how many wells are drilled, so I asked if he agreed that his regulations are the cause of the present boom in drilling. Governor Ritter responded with a Latin phrase that means "after(?) the fact means because of the fact" (or as I've often heard it - correlation does not imply causality). He then went on to discuss how the price of natural gas tanked after the rules were passed does not mean the rules had any impact on that price or amount of drilling.

He then went on to discuss what is presently occurring vindicates his approach to the new regulations, modernizing the rules to protect the environment and communities, and at the same time the industry can thrive here. Even with hindsight he thinks the new rules are a very good balance for everyone involved. He went on to say that he thinks they came up with a well-balanced set of rules because they brought everyone in to the process to craft the rules and listened to everyone. And the end result is we now have other states looking at Colorado as we're now the model for effective, efficient, fair regulations on this.

Governor Ritter then said something that I think defines not just this issue, but his policies across the board – "We took the long view in so many things where we knew that we were going to have some pain at the front end of things but that it was the right thing to do for the state." He then discussed how doing a good job governing requires that you take the long view.

I next asked him what is his proudest accomplishment. He started off saying that they made the quality of life better under very difficult circumstances. He then immediately dived in to specifics starting with education policy. He talked about the package of education policy bills that have been passed and how that is of dramatic importance for the future of our state, especially to address the drop-out rate and achievement gap. He next discussed healthcare policy, calling out in particular the healthcare availability act. He completed his list with sustainable transportation funding (FASTER).

He then switched gears and discussed what he thinks the history books will say. He thinks history will remember his administration for changing the energy culture in this state. He talked about how Colorado is now a world leader in new energy, both in where we get our energy, in the R&D facilities in the state, and in the manufacturing to provide items like wind turbines to the rest of the country. And another nice payoff of this is it has generated new jobs.

My $0.02: I think he's right points above. The history books will credit Governor Ritter with transitioning our state to green energy use and making us the silicon valley of green energy R&D and manufacturing – because that's a much simpler story. And I think his greatest legacy, if the education bills bear fruit, will be making this state competitive in the world economy. We can have a great future even if we trail on green energy, but our future would be bleak if we don't significantly improve our educational system.

Next I told Governor Ritter he gets a time machine, but gets to go back 4 years for 10 seconds to tell Governor-elect Ritter one thing. What would it be. He immediately answered that he would tell himself to pay more attention to the relationship between labor and the business community. He then said he would go back 5 years before the campaign started and stop himself from over-promising where was then not able to deliver. He later said that this was his biggest regret.

I then asked the Governor what was the biggest surprise over the last 4 years. He said it was how difficult it was to reach across the aisle to find common ground. He thinks a large part of that was a giant shock to the Republican party to lose so much ground since 2004 that they decided to focus on harming him politically as much as they code for electoral advantage rather than focusing on what is best for the state. (Gee, I'm shocked, repeat shocked.)

He then went on to discuss how fortunately we Democrats had a majority in both houses and so we were able to get legislation through on a party line vote. But he clearly found it frustrating that at times Republicans would vote against what they knew was in the long term interests of the state merely to gain a political advantage. He then observed that once he announced that he was not running for re-election, it suddenly became a lot easier to craft bi-partisan bills, because there was no political win in handing him a defeat. Governor Ritter also gave props to the Republicans on educational reform saying that the Republicans consistently supported education.

He went on to say that elections mean a lot. If you don't win elections, you don't get to govern. He also discussed how the same thing happened with Governor Owens, once it was clear he was never going to run for political office again, it was a lot easier for both Governor Owens and the Democrats in the legislature to find common ground.

I asked if he was still comfortable with his decision to not run for re-election. He replied with an emphatic YES! He went on to discuss how this has improved his relationship not just with his family, but with a lot of people he knows. He talked about how this is an all-consuming job (and that's understating it) and relationships suffer from that. He also made a really good observation that it not only is good for his family, but it's good for him personally.

He then added that he thinks there are a lot of people who are able to do both, do a good job in office and put in the time required to have a strong relationship with family & friends, "but I wasn't one of them."

My $0.02: I think it speaks incredibly well of Bill Ritter that he put family before political office and that he is totally upfront about it. I think he's wrong though that some people can do all of it well – an all-consuming job does negatively impact your relationship with your family because there are only so many hours in the day.

Next question for Governor Ritter was "what next?" He said he has not decided yet but he is in discussions with a number of folks and will probably make a decision shortly after the first of the year. I asked what type of job and he said he hadn't decided on that yet – but he will definitely stay in Colorado (which makes sense as elsewhere would have an impact on the family).

Next I asked what is the big issue Colorado will face in 20 years (assuming we are a green energy center and education is better). Governor Ritter replied "that we can get more for less money" (he's right – people who say that are lying!). That we can get more services, more jobs, and at the same time we can shrink government. He said that yes we need to always be fiscally prudent, but there are a number of things that would be better for the state that would cost money.

He went on to say that higher education is a good place to start. We are underfunding higher education and we cannot continue to underfund it without losing an edge. We're 5^th in the country for jobs that require a college degree. Yet our most rapidly growing segment of the population is Latino/Latina and we're doing a lousy job providing them education. That we need to fund the programs that get people through K-12 ready for college, get them in to college, and get them to successfully graduate from college.

He went on to say "if we haven't figured this out 20 years from now, we'll be in real trouble." He says the people of this state have to figure out what they really want going forward. And they have to understand the impact higher ed has on the quality of life, economic development, etc.

I asked if the root problem is that a significant chunk of the populace doesn't care about the benefits higher ed brings, or if it's that people think they can keep taxes low and should be able to get the services they want. He replied both. First that people don't know, or that they haven't made the case to the people, about how key higher ed is to the future of this state.

Governor Ritter then said that an equal problem is the cynicism people have for the government. They look at the federal government with the deficit spending and the debt to GDP ratio is worrisome. And that reflects on to the state government. And with that comes people's lack of trust in the government to do these things, and do them well.

My $0.02: Governor Ritter is spot on about this. The biggest limit my company faces is finding qualified people to hire. And we're a software company that sells world-wide, we're exactly the kind of company Colorado needs more of for a better future. But without employees to fill the jobs, we're limited in our growth. This is a problem today and it's getting worse at present.

I next asked if he was only about to give Governor-elect Hickenlooper one piece of advice, what would it be. He replied that while he has talked to Hick, he is keeping his advice to him private.

So I flipped to, if he got to give one piece of advice to the upcoming legislature, what would it be. He immediately answered "they have to reach across the aisle." With a split between the legislative houses and a 3:3 split on the JBC they will have to work together to create a budget that is balanced both literally and figuratively. That no one group bears the brunt of the cuts.

I next asked how he managed to handle the significant budget cuts required by the economy and do so in a way that there was no drama and everyone was pretty accepting of how the cuts were allocated. Governor Ritter first pointed out that there was push back from the business community. (Note: Just the greedy I've got mine so screw you businesses.) He said it was due to their warning people what was coming, that the state was in better shape than other parts of the country, and that they did their best to do it in as fair and low-impact a way as possible.

So that led to my asking if TABOR is truly a problem. Governor Ritter first spoke to how we should have built up a rainy day fund when the economy was booming but instead refunded taxes due to TABOR. He then said it is not an issue in the near future because of the Ref C adjustments, especially how the base year is now the best year rather than the last year. But he sees it being a serious issue again by 2016 because of all the necessary things we don't fund. The state can't survive without investing in the future.

My $0.02: I think fundamentally what has occurred over the last 15 or so years is the cutbacks have forced us to stop investing in our future and instead run out the previous state investments. In other words we've been spending our principal, running up the credit cards, and you can only do that for so long. Now we not only have to get back to investing in our future, but we have to invest even more just to get back to where we were.

Last question – I asked him about the money we spend on prisons and should we treat drugs as a mental health issue instead of a criminal issue. Governor Ritter first talked about how he started the state's first drug court. But he then said we cannot legalize drugs. He then went on to say that 75% of violent crimes are committed because people are intoxicated. He then continued saying we have to continue to educate kids about the problems that come with drugs, we have to spend money on treatment, and you have to address those people who won't obey the law. But you cannot legalize it because if you do then drug use will become normative. He then went on to discuss how crime has dropped over the past two years and with that the number of people in prison has dropped.

Saying Goodbye Sucks

Family should come first so I have to agree that Governor Ritter made the right decision to not run for re-election. But he's done very well for this state. Minimizing the damage during economic cratering does not get the accolades that building during economic booms gets, yet the tough times are the much harder job. Getting us through the depression as well as he did makes Ritter a really good governor. Setting in motion efforts to significantly improve K-12 education and making us a green energy center, on top of handling the terrible economy, makes Governor Ritter an outstanding governor.

I have every expectation that Governor-elect Hickenlooper will also do an outstanding job. But I hate to see Governor Ritter go. I respect him a lot as both a Governor and as someone who puts family first. So I'll leave it with this message to him.

Thank you

Recording: BillRitter.wma

Congressman Jared Polis – the story behind the story on the tax compromise bill

Congressman Polis was kind enough to talk to me last night and explain what was going on behind the scenes on the tax compromise bill from the Democratic House perspective. It's a fascinating story with several parts posturing, several parts negotiating, and a sprinkling of making a point. It's not politics as we learn it in the textbooks, but it is politics as it is actually practiced. And thank you to Jared for laying out what was actually going on. (I think how Jared and others in the House handled this bodes well for their being able to negotiate well from the minority over the next 2 years.)

Jared first discussed all the efforts involved in the lame duck session, and how crazy it is trying to move all that through. First is the omnibus appropriations bill or a continuing resolution, the DREAM act, DADT, the defense authorization bill might come back from the Senate without DADT, and then the tax bill. He has been so busy that he was never in his office all day with all the meetings going on, including he is on the steering & policy committee which is presently working out who all the Democratic ranking committee members will be.

The Tax Compromise

I then asked Jared what he was doing, thinking, voting, etc. over the last couple of weeks on the tax bill. He started off by saying the big items in the bill at first were addressing the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and revising the estate tax. And he stated that he supports the bill. Then he went into the full history (the next several paragraphs is my paraphrasing Jared's explanation):

In November of 2009 the House passed an Estate tax that he found reasonable and he not only supported it but was a floor manager of the bill. Instead of the estate tax dropping to 0% for 2010, it would have set it at 45% on everything passed on over 3.5 million. The Senate did not act and so the estate tax has been 0% this year. Jared described the 0% inheritance tax as "in my mind is a travesty" (very good to hear such strong words on this).

Next about a month ago the House passed a very clean tax bill that let the cuts expire on income over 250 thousand and retained them for the first 250 thousand of income. This was a bill he ran on and supported. It went to the Senate where it got 53 votes and therefore failed. So we were then facing a course where all the tax cuts expire which was not a course he supported. A family making 40K would see their taxes go up 1K/year, a family making 60K would see an increase of 1.5K. Jared also pointed out that this was the platform both he and President Obama ran on and this is an area where he fully supports the President.

So Congress was then looking at a significant increase in taxes when people are struggling to stay afloat, coupled "with something that is even more onerous … the expiration of unemployment benefits." Specifically there are several thousand Coloradans a week who will roll off unemployment starting next week "right before Christmas" if this is not renewed. Jared then added "I have no confidence that Republicans would renew unemployment benefits."

My $0.02: I think it's a key point that Jared (and therefore certainly many other Democratic Congress people) believe that with a Republican majority there will be no extension of unemployment benefits. And that is a very reasonable assumption. As such, continuing extended unemployment benefits becomes now or never.

Therefore that required a trade. President Obama wanted the middle class tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits. What was the price for that? Tax cuts for the wealthy "which seems to be their legislative priority." The Republicans held the Democratic parts hostage because they had the power to do so. In addition "my party, the Democratic party did not do very well in the election and they're coming to town." And so come January if we Democrats wait till then we are likely to get less or nothing.

There's no advantage in waiting for a worse deal later. He understands philosophically the desire to let the Republicans screw it up, but in responsibility to his district, he cannot let unemployment benefits to run out and allow a tax increase to hit the middle class. And the President had limited leverage because of the upcoming change in Congress.

I then asked if the tax cut for the millionaires was the only part the Republicans cared about. Jared replied "it seems to be … yeah that's what they want, they want some adjustment on the estate tax as well." He then said that there was bi-partisan support for adjusting the estate tax because the minimum next year is 1 million and that's a problem for many family farms and other small family businesses. What is in the bill is not as good as the House bill last year (35% above 5 million vs. the House's 45% above 3.5 million).

My $0.02: Jared is rich, moderate, and a strong believer in the power of the free enterprise system. If anyone is going to find common ground with the Republicans in Congress, Jared will. And he sees them as interested solely in giving more to the rich. I'd say that's a pretty clear indicator of Republican intent.

One of the things the progressive caucus wanted to get in the bill was to continue the renewable energy tax credits. This was "one of the reasons you saw our caucus, the Democratic caucus, doing some posturing." That gave us some leverage in negotiating some changes. This posturing led to an agreement by the Republicans to add the renewable energy grants, a couple of renewal energy tax credits, etc.

I asked if some of the last week was primarily a negotiating ploy. Jared replied "we wanted to show there was ambiguity as to if it could even pass the house … I thought that was a good idea, not that the remarks to the press were not genuinely heartfelt … but the reason we all joined in on this was that strategically they should not take the House Democrats for granted." That there had to be some concessions to the House Democrats.

In the negotiations, the House Democrats were not involved, the House Republicans were not involved, the Senate Democrats were not involved. It was just the President and the Senate Republicans. So this was a way to push back and make the bill a little better. (And probably also a way to remind Obama and McConnell that they couldn't take the House for granted.)

But after that was done "not passing a bill is unconsciousable and contrary to everything the Democrats stand for" to allow unemployment benefits to run out in the midst of a recession and to have a tax hike on low and middle income workers.

DADT

I next asked about DADT – does he think it will pass the Senate. Jared first talked about how wonderful it was they passed a stand-alone bill in the House, including 15 Republicans voting for it. He then pointed out that it has the votes in the Senate so it's merely a matter of timing and scheduling. But he said that first the Senate has to figure out how to keep the government open. But then, if there's time, then yes.

I then asked him to look 10 years out, every state will have gay marriage – at that point what will be the next major civil rights issue. He said that's hard to predict but quite possibly it could be poverty or education. Jared pointed out that the quality of a child's education is decided by the neighborhood they live in, that we have some fine public schools, but we also have some with a 60% drop out rate. (I think providing a quality education to all could well be the next civil rights struggle.)

Next Year

I first asked if he thinks this country can get serious about debt when the Senate will not allow a tax increase on millionaires. Jared replied that he was encouraged by President Obama's leadership in this including the fiscal commission and the ideas coming from several progressive groups. The tax bill makes things worse, but the big issues are medium and long term, not short term. So we do need to insure we don't bankrupt our country, but he's encouraged by the President's efforts on this.

I next asked about the housing crisis. Jared's immediate reply was that many families are barely scraping by and barely making their house payment. If the tax cuts expire we will see a lot more foreclosures as more families can no longer cover their mortgage payment. So if we don't renew the tax cuts for the middle class, the housing crisis will be worse. Ditto if unemployment benefits expire.

He then discussed how Colorado has had a long bottom for a couple of years, unlike Las Vegas which is still in really bad shape. Talking specifically about Adam & Boulder County, we've had stagnation for awhile, but he doesn't think it will get worse. And a "very progressive" part of the tax bill reduces the payroll tax on the first 108K. This will again help people with their mortgage payments. So, while foreclosures are still high, they have dropped some and should continue to drop.

I followed up asking if the payroll tax cut will damage social security, by making it permanent and then having to reduce social security to match that cut. Jared replied "no." As a progressive cut it's good, as a strong stimulus it's good. He then discussed how social security has long term issues that we need to address. Yes it will move forward a year or two when they need to address social security, but we need to address it regardless. Addressing it will probably be raising the cap, means testing the benefits, etc. when they need to take steps to keep social security solvent.

Next I asked if he thought Congress next year would be able to do anything effective on jobs or effective stimulus. Jared first discussed the simulative effect of the compromise bill. Then speaking of next year he said "I don't see any kind of jobs effort coming from the Republicans. They've certainly been devoid of ideas this session." He then added that if they presented any ideas, he would be thrilled to work with them on it.

My final question was does Washington have less of a gut feel for the recession as unemployment is stovepiped in certain segments and so our Congress people don't see it first-hand. He started off saying a third of the Democratic staff are out of work (because of the flip due to the election results). So they know many people specifically who are out of work and struggling to find a new job. He then discussed how Congress people see this constantly when they are back in their district, talking to people, etc. Jared runs in to people all the time that have lost jobs, can't find work, are underemployed, etc. So he is directly aware of how tough and desperate it is for many, speaking eloquently and emotionally about this.

Jared's Closing Statement

I asked Jared if there was anything he wanted to add. He talked about how next session is going to be interesting because he doesn't know what it will be like to be in the minority (I know – it sucks). "We will not be running the place, we will be responding, messaging." He then added the good news is the Democrats won't have the responsibility of governing but instead can attack the Republicans for their mistakes. "I say that wearing my political hat, but wearing my American hat I really hope they come up with some good ideas."

He then added that this tax bill is one of the most difficult bills he will vote for, because it has a lot of things in it he does not support. But that it is far better, not even a close call, passing a bill rather than allowing unemployment insurance to expire and presenting the middle class with a huge tax hike.

Full recording of interview - Jared had to put me on hold twice so you can listen to it with the hold times cropped out JaredPolis_cropped.wma or listen to the entire thing JaredPolis.wma

Jared's letter to his colleagues regarding the bill (pie charts are evil but the letter is good): Download Dear_Colleague_Obama_Tax_Proposal22

Senator Michael Johnston Interview

First off an apology, I forgot my recorder and so was not able to record the interview. So we're going by my memory and a couple of notes I made. Consider all "quotes" to be paraphrases.

We started off with Senator Johnston asking me about my idea to address TABOR, etc. He was interested because most every Republican I have mentioned it to finds it an interesting alternative and so it might get wide support. The idea is to eliminate all budget restrictions in the constitution and replace it with a limit that total state revenues from all sources cannot exceed X% of the state GDP averaged over the previous 3 years.

Michael's first response was why not a percentage of total state income (fine with me). But he then discussed that an approach like this would let the legislature then adjust different revenue sources without having to take each change to the voters. He was a bit plaintive about the fact that in no other state do they need to go to the voters at all, but did accept that in Colorado the voters insist on being asked.

My first question was on SB-191. I said that passing the legislation was the easy part, implementing it effectively is the hard part. Michael said he's recently learned that and plans to stay heavily involved in the process as it moves through the Governor's Council, then to the Board of Education, and then back to the legislature.

He said the Council is doing a great job with everyone, including the CEA members, are working diligently to build a really good system. So he is continuing to pay attention to this and realizes he's just started down this path.

I next asked what he's going to focus on this year. Three main areas. The first is to give instate tuition for undocumented children who live in Colorado. He was very passionate in his discussion about how it is the right thing to do and is of benefit to the state of Colorado. (He's right on both counts.)

Second was energy where he is introducing three pieces of legislation. First is a bill to make it easy for homeowners to get a loan to improve the energy efficiency of their house and then split the savings in the monthly utility bill with half going to pay off the loan and half they keep (nice incentive). He agreed virtually all homeowners can do this today going to their banks, but this will make it a single step and that ease means more will do it.

Second (on Energy) is to have all buildings, residential and commercial, when sold or rented get an energy use rating so that the purchaser or tenant knows what their probable utility bill will be. He says he particularly likes the system Washington state has in place. The idea is that facilities that have high energy usage will have a stronger incentive to improve as the bad rating will make it harder to sell or rent the building.

Third (on energy) is to improve the transmission lines in the state. Senator Johnston says between wind and solar potential in this state, we have enough to power all of California. But that power needs a way to get to California. He wants to modernize the grid (it presently is antiquated) and set up a system to carry all the excess power we can generate to California.

I asked about getting it through the states between here and California and he discussed how the states are going to work together to create a transmission super line, but he then said that he had not discussed this with any other states. (So good idea, but I think there's quite a bit of homework remaining for this one.)

I next asked Michael what he'll do after his terms are up. He said he hadn't given it any thought and that 7 years will be the longest he's ever held a single job. (The way he put this and acted, I think he was being truthful.) He then offered that if he went back to being a principal after this, he would be very happy. I observed that those are two different roles, the principal is an executive while the Senate is legislative. He agreed but said they each had their advantages.

My $0.02: Senator Johnston in passing SB-191 had arguably the most impact of any single legislator in the last session. And he did that as the most junior member. To a lot of people heavily involved in politics that screams fast track and they're figuring he's on the road up and is eyeing what's next – governor, department head, etc.

I think it's a lot simpler, he's in the legislature to improve the lot of the people of Colorado through the legislation he passes, the services he protects, etc. He's focused on the job he can do there, not on using it as a stepping stone. And I think this makes him a much better and more effective legislator.

We then switched to asking what Republicans he looked to to find common ground. He first listed Josh Penry and said he will miss him as Josh was really good to work with. He next listed Senator Brophy and said while they tended to widely disagree, Greg was always thoughtful, willing to listen, and would look for compromise. And finally he listed Nancy Spense as a moderate he could find common ground with in many cases.

And then the flip side, what Democrats are so locked in to their views that there's no point in working with them. I got a look of "is any politician dumb enough to answer a question like that" and said none of them. He said that all of them were open-minded and that they are a good group. (Hey, it was worth a shot.)

I next asked about the Fed's actions addressing the depression. He talked about how ARRA stopped states and local governments from being devastated and that many would have been forced into bankruptcy. He then discussed the upcoming compromise bill saying that while he wasn't thrilled with it, he supported it, then launching into a discussion about how many people in his district are dependent on the unemployment insurance extensions in the bill.

Senator Johnston brought up the very valid point that most on the right wing are screaming that the compromise bill is unacceptable, and to him that's a sign that it is a fair compromise – that both wings are against it. (That is a very good way to measure it.) He then added that once it is passed, the Democrats have to work hard to bring back the progressive wing.

I then brought up the question of does the state have a strategic plan. Michael said that yes, but that the governor has a plan, the Republicans in the Senate have a plan, the Democrats in the Senate have a plan,… He then discussed how Governor Ritter had a very clear strategic view on education and green energy – and did a superb job implementing that plan (very true). He sees the present strategic plan being to increase jobs in the state and continue to protect and support the people in the state.

Next up was the question of measuring the impact of state actions, improvements, tax exemptions, etc. Michael immediately jumped on the fact that none of the predicted negative impacts from eliminating some tax exemptions occurred and in fact companies like Pepsi that predicted layoffs actually increased hiring. (My guess is this is indicative of many in the legislature and so they will be very willing to eliminate additional exemptions – and ignore any predictions of negative consequences.)

He also said there is nothing in place to measure the impact of anything the state does. He agrees it is something the state should do. (Legislators have limited time and bandwidth – I think Senator Johnston will support anything along these lines, but he's not going to drive it.)

I then asked if state departments should be antagonistic toward business. His reply was "I hope not." When I took him through my experience with the Department of Revenue where they could not answer 2/3 of our questions and they told us to ask a tax expert (and left unsaid that they would then come after us if they disagreed) – he was very surprised. He started asking me questions about how the state could best give businesses clear answers so they could know they were correctly following the law. I suggested that they should provide answers, and live with that answer for a year – this was one of the two times he took notes, so maybe we'll see improvement here.

I next asked him what program he would end. Michael's first comment was that when the budget situation is this grim, everyone looks to what they will try to keep and silence is viewed as consent to cut. So legislators are focused on what to save. But he then after some thought said that he would support drastically reducing DARE (which I think is the polite way of saying end). He said that reviews of the program showed that it didn't have much impact (I have read that too).

Then the flip side, I asked what program he would like to create. He immediately said the career ladders proposal in SB-191. This is a program for the top teachers to document their best practices and then teachers who are new or struggling can look up what has worked well teaching the same subject, and makes use of the practices that best fit their situation. This is a part of the bill that was going to be funded by Race to the Top, but the Governor's Council can propose the state funding it and the legislature can hopefully scrape up the funds (that they saved from DARE).

My $0.02: There are a significant number of teachers who think Senator Johnston wants to fire lots of teachers. I don't think that is true at all and I think his answer here illustrates that his focus is on making teachers successful.

Next up was TABOR. Michael's first discussed the fiscal commission that is looking at this whole mess and he is interested in what they will come up with. He then thinks we will either need to do a one-time revocation of the one-issue rule (as an amendment) followed by an amendment that undoes TABOR and the other constraints (his first choice). Or they will need to put a tax increase on the ballot (his second choice).

I asked him if he was open to a constitutional convention and he said yes. However, he was not aware that this route requires three elections and that put a bit of a damper on his support for the idea.

I then asked about his level of constituent service (I heard a complaint). He apologized for doing poorly on it and said his goal now is to answer everything within 1 week. And he asked me to put out a plea – if you have sent him an email and not received a response, please resend your email. He did try to track down the complaint I heard but was unable to find it. (This is definitely not his strong suit but he is trying to do better.)

I closed out by asking if he had any advice for his fellow Democrats. Michael's reply was that no, he's still learning. (Clearly he does not view himself as an expert or major player.) He then went on to say they will have to work differently this year unlike last year when a D on the bill pretty much guaranteed passage (that's sad). And they will need to focus on growing jobs and providing core services.

Conclusion

Senator Johnston is personable, smart, & energetic, but so are many others in the legislature. What I think makes him stand out is he's focused on accomplishing his goals and fine that the job is short term. And he's clearly willing to put it all on the line to accomplish his goals. Michael is not in the legislature on the way to somewhere else, or to accomplish various items in the future – he's there to get some things done today and tomorrow.

I think this makes him a very effective legislator. And my bet is in 9 years he'll be a principal again putting the same focus and energy into his school.