U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 12, 2010 03:50 PM UTC
86 Comments
from the NY Times
I’d say he’s in the same category I’m in – hoping like hell this was enough to stop the banks from destroying the economy again, but very afraid it isn’t enough.
Sad that the banks have so much power in Congress that even taking us back to 1990 in terms of regulation was “off the table.”
Racial quotas in a finance bill?
http://dailycaller.com/
You can site a right-wing hack bullshitter like Diane F-R, but that doesn’t make it true. We pretty much kicked the shit out of Newsman this weekend for peddling this lie:
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
Let me say it more simply: you can insist that any pro-diversity evidence leads to quotas, but that’s simply not logically true.
.
disputed, but not refuted.
I have some knowledge of the body of law and regulation surrounding preference programs in federal contracting. The Small Business Act of 1965, as amended, makes no mention of quotas. Neither do the implementing regs. But the Regs manage to introduce the idea of goals.
In this context, “goals” have the same meaning as quotas. I know, because I used to assemble quarterly “goaling” and “goal attainment” reports for a federal agency.
The language for “Offices of Women and Minority Participation” in the bill was patterned after the SBA of 1965. How is it that you think the results – “quotas,” which are called “goals” – will be any different ?
.
What makes it even more offensive is Microsoft, Oracle, etc. will sell through a distributor that is owned by a minority female disabled veteran located in an economically disadvantaged zone. So Microsoft, Oracle, etc count in all those goals while we’re just a small business.
To add insult to injury, my company is majority female owned (my wife & daughters) but because it’s not a single woman owning over half, we don’t count as female owned. In fact, a company owned by 10 women, each holding 10%, does not count as female owned.
The goals are treated as quotas. And those quotas are gamed so that the big companies still make the sales.
Perhaps they are just more informed or have a different view of right and wrong.
When you treat people differently because of a protected status you are discriminating against one status or the other. In my view financial regulations should be color and gender blind.
The idea of preferences and set asides has got to the point where it amounts to graft and cronyism based on status. You want to get a federal contract? Put your business in your wife’s name and voila, you are in good to go. The person that pays for this inefficiency is the taxpayer.
Seriously, you both can’t stop making stuff up? You’re both defending (a) a false claim of “racial quotas” in this bill, by (b) complaining that OTHER laws have “preferences and set-asides.” Is this from the upcoming bestseller, “everything I need to know about debate I learned from Sarah Palin”?
And federal agencies do view those as quotas.
… not with law.
These offices are supposed to ensure equal access, not equatable assignment.
What is a “fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts”?
The regulations will not be based on opportunity but result. If it is based on result they will necessarily be using different criteria in order to obtain the result. The different criteria will result in discrimination based on status.
The word “fair” in the world of Maxine Waters who inserted the language in the bill is not equality of opportunity. It is equality of result.
I understand now.
I don’t like racism whether it is practiced by whites or blacks. Call me old school.
Except that a black person suggested it. You said so yourself.
I believe in fairness or equality of opportunity. I don’t believe in ginning the system to pretend that opportunity is fair in order to achieve a predetermined outcome, like a set aside or quota.
Seems pretty clear to me where this is going.
“fair inclusion and utilization” equate to quotas?
.
do I hear an echo ?
This is what the Small Business Act prescribes. Not quotas.
But after a couple of years with no clear progress toward realizing that policy, in the late 1960’s, under Nixon, the FAR was revised to require every federal agency to establish goals for each preference category. This was a regulatory “clarification;” no change to the underlying law was needed.
Then, a couple of years later, when the goals were not being met, pressure was applied to meet the goals.
Today, there’s a governmentwide goal for each category, and there’s only one executive agency that totally blows off the “goals,” Department of Energy. In all other Departments, if a “goal” is missed, Senior Executives don’t get promoted and don’t get bonuses.
.
.
I think that justice demands some sort of consideration for young black men born into a dysfunctional culture that stemmed ultimately from generations of slavery and denigration of the dignity of the black man.
But I don’t think that poor and lower middle class Caucasian men should have to pay the price of making these amends; I’d rather see the beneficiaries of the historic maltreatment pay. Family fortunes built on the backs of slaves. But how do you make that work ? I don’t know how. Does the Estate Tax have that effect ? Not really.
The preference program for Alaska Native Corporations is today the most powerful tool for compensating Alaska natives who lost their land to those of European descent. But they get sole source contracts at the expense of other Small Disadvantaged Businesses, many owned by black Americans. And I’ve only once seen an actual Native Alaskan involved in the management of an ANC.
There’s a “quota” for woman-owned small businesses, but no set-aside or preference. The “goal” is 5% for most agencies. I think about 25% of all small businesses are woman-owned. Without a preference, the 5% goal will never be reached.
I think disabled vets deserve whatever benefits we can give them. The goal for them is 3%. But fewer than 5% of small businesses owned by disabled vets get over 95% of all the contracts awarded through this preference program.
What’s more, there’s also a 3% goal for non-disabled vet-owned small businesses. Guess what ? There’s no preference for this category, so, like WOSB, if a VOSB gets a contract, it’s by luck or coincidence.
Bottom line, the effect of these preference programs in contracting is to set one group of businesses who deserve a break against the others. None of these socio-economic programs are ever going to cut into the juicy contracts that the big campaign contributors like Lockheed Martin get.
My sense, hiring preferences probably work the same way. Nobody whose Daddy is a VP at Goldman-Sachs is going to miss out on a job due to a quota, but my kids might.
.
that was bidding on a big DOE job.
Rest assured that the senior management was all Alaskan Natives. I won’t tell you which tribe because that would give away the identity of my client. The Native Corporations might not all work that way, but this one certainly did.
And by the way, we came in second on the nebulous criterion of “value to the government” (we had the highest-scoring proposal but an inferior proposal came in lower on cost). I think you and I might have discussed “value to the government” one other time regarding a job you bid for DoD.
The only preference we got was that we were allowed to bid on a small business set-aside no matter how many employees the parent corporation had. “Small Business” was a joke on that contract anyway, the threshold was 500 employees. That’s not a very small business to me.
The preference only means that the Native Corporations can bid on more jobs, not necessarily that they will be handed them.
.
Historically, 8(a) was primarily a program to redress social and economic disadvantage, and it appeared to me (in the 1990’s) that most 8(a) firms that I dealt with were black owned.
Then Ted Stevens did his magic. He carved out 2 exceptions for ANC 8(a)’s:
+++ Although an 8(a) participant had to qualify as a small business, according to size standards stated in terms of $ turnover or # of employees, ANC’s were excepted from that limit. Technically, whenever they busted the size standard, they could form a new daughter corporation and keep on truckin’. For an ordinary 8(a), busting the cap in a particular industry meant no more contracts in that industry, and their size must include all “affiliated” firms.
+++ For ordinary 8(a)’s, there was a cap on sole source awards, either $3 or $5 Million, depending on the industry. ANC’s had no cap on sole source awards. I think there’s only 14 parent ANC’s, a pretty small community.
Now, the thing about 8(a)’s that makes them attractive to government activities is that there’s an exemption from competition, from the need for fair and reasonable pricing, and the need for openness. So, if you want to make an award in 2 weeks, start to finish, 8(a) let’s you do that, and you can direct the award to a particular 8(a) small business who agrees to pass through 50% of the work to whoever you specify. NGA (formerly NIMA, formerly NRO) made a $1 Billion + sole source that way a few years back, never advertised, never competed, from concept to contract in 30 days. No pesky inquiries from industry or oversight by Congress or the Courts.
So if your 8(a) ANC was competing, they were not doing their marketing very well.
.
… that having diversity offices and having requirements of inclusive procedures, etc., will induce businesses to employ hiring quotas. But that’s a prediction that policy A will lead to result X; policy A is simply not the imposition of quotas.
Let me show you how you’d find your own logic unacceptable: I think TABOR, by requiring massive cuts in social services and education, will destroy young people’s lives. But it’d be inaccurate and, frankly, stupid of me to declare “Conservaties pass law requiring impoverished students not to be educated.” Yet that’s exactly what NEWSMAN did: “Democrats pass Race and Gender Quotas.” I’m entitled to predict that a law you support will lead to apocalyptic result X; I’m not entitled to say “Conservatives passed X” based on my apocalyptic theory of consequences.
There are no quotas in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that says that less qualified people get preference over more qualified people.
The bill’s sole enforcing component is that the Director of each Office of Minority and Women’s Inclusion may recommend to the head of his department the termination of any contract in which the contractor has not extended a good faith effort to hire minorities/women. In legal terms, that means anyone who can show the steps they took to find decent people within the women’s and minority workforce (contractor pool) and why they ultimately chose to hire or not hire from that pool. Nothing more.
The bill adds two other categories of requirements for the new diversity offices, in addition to the policy role discussed elsewhere:
That’s it. Terribly scary. But, of course, if it weren’t terribly scary, you couldn’t use it to terrify voters in to voting for Republicans, could you? (Lots of terrorizing going on in that statement – hmm…)
.
Maybe my experience with the federal rulemaking process is different than yours.
Start by considering federal contracting. There are NO QUOTAS in the Small Business Act, as amended.
There are NO QUOTAS in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which implements the Act.
Once a year, each agency negotiates it’s “goals” for about 8 categories of small businesses, some enjoying preference and some not. As the year progresses, “goal attainment” is reported quarterly. STILL NO QUOTAS.
After the end of the Fiscal Year, in October, agencies report their attainment. This factors into their goal for the next year. NO QUOTAS.
If the agency does not meet their goals, then agency executives suffer in terms of promotions and bonuses. OOPS! It turns out that those “goals” really were quotas, after all. All through the year, those Senior Executive Service execs were watching the metrics that determined their bonuses, and were acting to ensure the goals were met, without ever proclaiming any quotas.
.
That’s my anecdotal experience. No stated quotas, but de facto quotas none the less.
I have no evidence, but I assume it will work the same way in this situation. It’s my opinion.
I figure that you are OK with quotas, so you play along with the charade. Good for you. But I think it’s disingenuous to treat ignorance of how federal rules are made and implemented as evidence of anything one way or the other concerning that subject.
.
If failure to meet minority hiring / contracting goals leads to a penalty without further cause, then I as a legislator, executive administrator, or judge would find it either impermissible or illegal.
You have to match up to reality sometimes – there is almost certainly a shortage of qualified minorities in many fields. That used to be a huge problem with general construction and woman-owned businesses, e.g. – don’t know if it still is, but based on my experience with the industry, I’d say ‘yes’. Government agencies shouldn’t be squeezing water from a stone, and department heads shouldn’t be penalized for failing to extract a gallon from a rock holding a pint.
We have a lot of cases where the federal government buys from us, but they have us use a distributor that meets all the criteria so they get credit for all of their goals. The only value the distributor adds to the transaction is the goals – we still deliver direct to the federal agency and provide direct support.
So yes, those “goals” change how they operate. What’s really screwy in our case is Microsoft software is purchased the same way and so purchases of Microsoft, Cisco, Dell, etc. count toward the goals.
For commercial software it’s a shell game.
It’s counter-productive to the real goal, which should be understanding the scope of the problem and attempting to address it if necessary.
then your marketing effort sucks.
They do the same thing.
.
That’s just how that market niche (Schedule 70) has evolved, what with the irrational diversion of so many contracts to GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts.
Advantages of GSA FSS:
+++ prices already certified as “fair and reasonable,” even though only a fool pays list (schedule) price; and
+++ the base contract is already in place, so all an agency has to do is place an order and pay the GSA a 0.75% user fee. No advertising, no competition, no protests.
In my experience, a schedule order usually is priced 15 – 20% more than an actual Purchase Order.
But many Contracting Officers will willingly use a GSA FSS, since #1, it ain’t their money, and #2, it’s easier than doing their job.
Going thru a GSA Schedule, Federal agencies are going to pay the same price, whether to the manufacturer directly or passed through a preference eligible or targeted small business category distributor or manufacturer’s rep.
The manufacturer sets the price, regardless of the channel, though they will deny that. In order to meet their “goals,” an agency will go thru that manufacturer’s rep almost every time.
I’ve been giving a tutorial on Government Contracting today. I sure hope I got most of the stuff right. If not, sue me. Or hire me.
.
surely it would be possible to do both.
that they win (big time) and the people and country lose (big time). It will happen again unless there is more of a disincentive for the perpetrators.
We need to change out those in office for people concerned about people not their own pockets or making corporations personhood more powerful and wealthy.
financing campaigns differently will never happen in the foreseeable future. To date all any level of passable campaign finance reform has done is change the route the money takes to get around the flimsy barriers. While having Dems in power hasn’t helped nearly enough, putting Rs back in the driver seat will only make things much, much worse and there is no viable alternative. Based on the old something is better nothing standard, we Dems better get over our enthusiasm deficit.
Considering how thoroughly Bush and the R congress crashed the economy when it was handed to them in fine shape, one can only imagine where we’ll wind up after handing them back the keys in our present condition.
Apparently you view this an an “again” opportunity signaling that the economy is on a level plane and everything is just fine.
My question David is what economic interests (shareholder value, dividends, etc..) were gained by bank owners via the apparrent 1st economic destruction that the banks caused?
They knew the recent orgy on derivitives, etc. could not last forever, but they made so much while it was happening no one was willing to call a halt.
What’s driven all the outsized EPS growth that they need to protect now?
Hint, dig deeper. There are many issues banks face today. One issue is real estate exposure that banks face … you should go sniff around that issue and others before you laydown your AMExpress and charge 1st class passage aboard the Waters-Pelolsi-Obama Express.
from Richard Cohen
I think Cohen misses an important distinction. Yes there are a number who do seem to celebrate simplistic answers that put what they want to hear over facts.
But I think there is a much larger group that is opposed not to a candidate who is smart, but is opposed to a candidate that is part of the group-think inside the beltway. Richard Cohen find people parroting that group think to be a necessary sign of intelligence. Many find it to be an issue of concern.
But anyways, Michael Bennet does have the strong endorsement of Richard Cohen and that is a plus with some voters.
.
That Cohen tribute to “Government by Bankers” is a week old.
.
.
Isn’t this supposed to be a secret ?
Won’t the proletariat get upset if they learn there are limits on who they are allowed to vote for ?
Mightn’t that reduce the number of phone votes on “American Idol ?”
.
your discussion with Dave but wouldn’t bancockracy be more descriptive? I mean if we are going to coin a new word here?
I read it as government by “people like me.”
This is very old news.
From the Washington Monthly, Tilting at Windmills by Charles Peters
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…
Full disclosure: I, of course, do not know Charlie Peters, but certainly know of him. He was shinning light in Shriver’s Peace Corps because of the integrity of his Evaluation Unit. He sent journalists to countries to observe and evaluate Peace Corps programs. The analysis were sometimes right on, sometimes not, but they were always honest and well written. Collectively, they are an important part of the history of the Kennedy/Johnson administration.
I also think that his comment illustrates, again, Bennet’s strong ties to the East Coast elite…who, IMHO, still do not “get it.”
Finally, can anyone link to the NY Times article which Bennet references?
…he was very concerned about the obvious corruption in the Nixon White House but refused to vote for McGovern in the ’72 Election.
As he said the morning after – “I’d rather vote for a smart crook than a dumb sonofabitch.”
.
Strictly because of the source ?
McGovern was an authentic war hero. Nixon, not so much.
The Watergate story broke in the Summer, 4+ months before the election.
What your Dad calls “dumb” I call “conscience.”
.
And partly because of the family connection.
McGovern was the first Republican propaganda casualty that I can think of. Swift Boated before Kerry, in effect.
As Watergate broke, he would come home from work and watch the Congressional Hearings, and then, the slow disintigration of the Republican Leadership.
As a curious pre-teenager, I asked many many questions about what was going on, adding a few “but YOU said that…” As first, he dismissed it as “those Dumb, Commie-loving Democrats who want to destroy the nation with their stupid laws.”
Eventually, he had to admit that his Political Party was rotten to the core, and needed some serious housecleaning. Shortly after that, he became an acknowledged “Independent,” and started backing the Smart Guy, John Anderson.
I guess I remember it because even though he knew Tricky Dick was as corrupt a politician as it came, he refused to even consider voting any other way until the stench of corruption was too powerful to ignore.
the shame of having to admit to a blood relationship with anyone who voted for Nixon. Even my now black sheep conservative uncle was just a budding Archie Bunker in those days and couldn’t bring himself to be the first of his bloodline to pull the lever for a Republican. Unfortunately I can’t say that about Bush since my uncle did vote for him.
Funny thing is, Nixon wasn’t nearly as disastrous to the country or the world as Bush. Not even close.
…keeping the bloodbath going for years in order to be “tough on Communism” is another rotten legacy of Nixon.
He had a “secret plan” to end the war.
pols to subsequently do the right thing and end the war then than it is now. Also we were able to give up and go home without leaving behind anything one tenth as bad as what our willful stupid destabilization in the Iraq war is going to leave behind. Afghanistan will juat be eternally Afghanistan. Vietnam relatively quickly joined the community of nations with which we could have reasonable good relations and which could offer its people economic opportunity.
Nixon didn’t crash the economy. He opened China. We had a functional congress in which the point was to compromise to get things done. His domestic policies weren’t flat out crazy and destructive.
All in all, the nation and the world were much better off in the wake of Nixon than in the wake of Cheney/Bush . And of course Nixon inherited Vietnam while Iraq was entirely Cheney/Bush’s choice. The more direct comparison won’t be between Bush and Nixon concerning the wars.
Not that I think we have any proof one way or the other.
Both were the “flawed hero” archetype, which I find fascinating.
http://www.eons.com/groups/top…
Both Nixon and Clinton score nicely bright but in a not terribly spectacular way. GW not particularly low by any means. His apparent denseness probably due to an intellectual curiosity deficit rather than lack of basic equipment:
Richard Nixon 143
Bill Clinton 137
George Bush 125
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/f…
Caveat about this site: The alleged scores of historic figures are just glorified guess work but the modern era ones are fact based
the last GB was fried brain and by his own admission guilty of doing it to himself. I would not rely on any information put out by him or his cohorts.
It was documented at a perfectly adequate 125. And isn’t a total lack of intellectual curiosity worse than any IQ score? Plenty of people with scores like GW’s and a bit lower are interesting, knowledgeable, accomplished people one would love to have a conversation with. JFK’s? 119. Use link used for Nixon,Clnton and GW above.
JFK was using both his heads, just not one.
That score was for the head that contained the brain.
JFK used that quite frequently, and not always with his wife.
of which you are demanding any such thing or a birth certificate, for that matter. Please post a complete list.
That is The President
Within weeks after taking office, GW effectively made all presidential records off limits for a long, long time.
Probable reason: Poppy Bush and the Iranian October Surprise.
What “historical record(s)” is Obama denying access to?
There is only one person refered to as The President
Why do you insist on holding Obama to a different standard than any other president?
Thinly veiled racism.
for all previous president’s and all other pols (since Obama is the “only politician” all the rest must have theirs posted, right) will you? And if you can’t provide the links you will be just as loud in demanding all of the above from every and any other president and politician, right? You will go to all serving pols websites and, if you can’t find all that stuff posted, demand compliance, right?
This should be enough:
Definition of magna cum laude:
The only politician I know who bragged about his college grades is GW who bragged about getting ‘C’s.
I think that NOT going around bragging about graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School shows a lot more integrity. Only those who are insecure need to brag about their grades. Well, except for GW who apparantly bragged about a ‘C’ average to make him more like the guy you would want to have a beer with.. with others who also had ‘C’ averages.
an actual copy of that magna thing? What are they hiding?
to a voting public, large segments of which have as their main concern the proposition that nobody thinks they’re better than anyone else, the less said about excellence, the better. Nothing goes down as well with this segment as Cs and an inability to pronounce words of more than two syllables.
Clinton got away with the Rhodes Scholar thing because he could talk fluent good ‘ol boy and was no better than he should be, just like a regular guy. Once again:
So yeah, brillant people in politics have an interest in not making too much noise about it.
That’s probably where the shady stuff happened.
Each time some Tea Party idiot clamored for him to “release the birth certificate” and “disclose the grades,” I’d be that much MORE inclined to say “Fuck ’em. They’d never be asking for that stuff if I was WHITE.”
And you know what? He’d be right.
That he could be so incredibly coarse so often, especially in his constant slurs against Jews and Blacks.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co…
even compared to other rightie slanted polls.
As of the 11th, Rassie just had him down one instead of their usual 10 or 11 and the average on RealClear was a tie. So in one day Rassie went from minus one to minus thirteen? Must have noticed they weren’t doing a good enough job of bringing down the average.
Easy to check periodically to see where Rassie usually is compared to everyone else at: http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
Ritter Questions Obama Immigration Lawsuit, other Dem Guvs Follow Suit
On Sunday NY Times busted loose with the fact that Gov. Bill Ritter (along with a gaggle of other Dems) have spoken against The President and his administrations approach to the valid AZ immigration laws that seek to provide safety, security and stability to AZ citizens and visitors.
With 62% of Hispanic surnamed persons supportting an AZ like law for CO it is no wonder the Gov has moved to question Holders approach.
At the summer NGA meeting in Boston, the Times reported (premium content) that Democrats are very-very worried about their re-election prospects. Its more then worry though, the polls show the Democrats being punished by citizen voters due to the economy, which has been driven by causation factors representing Democratic failures. These failures have been allowed to occur to to a failure to act or acting without principle.
Life’s a circle and so is the economy – with failures in the application of tax hikes, government fee-madness, rising business costs, skyrocketing regulations and the incesent desire for a centrally planned economy continuing to crater job formation, the support for Sanctuary Cities is just another notch in the voters minds to avoid punching Democratic chads.
They’re wrong (IMHO), and griping once again about Federal/States rights issues.
If the governors want to get their immigration problems under control, I have a simple suggestion for them: call up their Senators and Representatives and tell them to press for comprehensive reform.
Following on the heals of the crushing CPs take down of certain complainent media organizations, the complainents were forced to gravel for time on John Caldera’s (i2i.org) TV show.
Its interesting to hear their perspectives on the internet influence, blogs, subscription trends and web presence. Also the Post behind the scenes is exposed to the general population.
…based on the Taliban’s NEW Secret Weapon – Monkey Soldiers.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/…
I for one, welcome our new primate conquerers!
Amazing he hasn’t weighed in on the Scott McInnis situation.
no outing or attempted outing.