As always, please vote as though you were placing a bet. We don’t want to know what you want to happen, but what you think will happen.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Closing Federal Center in Lakewood Would be Economic Disaster
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Sadly, the fact that Hillman has no college degree will come back to haunt him.
having a college degree mean anything to anyone??? Look at the former head of the Department of Regulatory Agencies, Insurance Commissioner’s Office. The guy that currently servex at the PUC.
He was once the Speaker of the House!!! He never had a college degree and it didn’t seem to matter. They are only figureheads anyway. It’s the upper-level managers and bureaucrats that are running the show.
Hillman probably figures he will do the same. Here’s one for Markie, how about you sitting down and calculating the actuarial tables for a person on PERA with 15 years of service, and 10 years until retirement. With a spouse and two children in college. Then figure that in 10 years they will be age 65 and plan to live until age 87. Also add in that they currently live on an annual household income of $50,000.00 and figure that the same $50,000.00 today, will depreciated at the rate of 3 – 5% per year.
Better yet, how about the legislature appropriates $300,000.00 to the 4th largest school district in 1995 for a Reading Imlementation Program that never transpires. Where did the money go?
The former Treasure and Governor didn’t seem to know, so hows about it?
You see, if you could answer the above, I would say that you are a shoe in for the job. If not, you’ve got problems. The Owen’s machine is winding down like a 78 lp on a 66 lp setting. Those endorsed by the governor haven’t been faring very well lately. Known as a negative coat tale effect. Time is quickly running out for all parties concerned.
At this rate, come January, many of the former Owen’s Regime will be heading for the unemployment line.
society wrongly sees not attending college as a type of failure.
College can be a learning experience, but it is certainly not for everyone. College is NOT a cure-all for stupid people. i would even argue it can dumb some people down (by displacing them from the real world).
I think Hillman is head and heels above Kennedy because of his real experience with finances and his communication abilities (especially journalistic). I am guessing that many of you have never worked on or owned a farm. Farmers who make it must be diligent and accurate with their finances and record-keeping. Coupled with his political experience, I think he is the better candidate. His biggest challenge will be overcoming the negative coattails of BB.
I really feel Kennedy does not possess the same level of skills as Hillman. I certainly do not feel she has much desire to work with Republicans as Hillman has done with Democrats. Although I am pretty confident Hillman is the more ethical, skilled, and qualified candidate I would love to hear more about what some of you feel are Kennedy’s positives.
but it shouldn’t. I am voting for Kennedy, but having said that, I don’t believe anyone running for elective office should be judged solely on their acquisition (or lack there of) of a college degree.
I know Mark, and he is extremely bright. Not having a degree does not make him stupid.
My choice of Kennedy is not predicated on the fact that Hilman does not have a degree, and I would hope that other voters’ choice of a candidate would not be based solely on that criteria either.
I agree that college degrees don’t necessarily mean anything, but experience is something else.
I don’t think he has any particular expertise, other than what he may have picked up as a legislator.
My only point is that having a degree in and of itself is not a qualifier or disqualifier.
George W. has a degree……
I am voting for Kennedy because she is qualified and clearly the better of the two candidates.
Yale Undergrad and a Harvad MBA. I seem to recall that there was a supreme court justice who did not have a degree, but I can not remember who it was. And this was relatively recently (i.e., 1900s forward). I think experience is necessary as well especially for a position like Treasurer but it wouldnt necessarily disqulify him.
Kennedy drives around in her Volvo having never earned a job, just political appointments deep in the beauracracy. I hope she goes after Hillman for his lack of degree. She will be exposed for the pampered, arrogant, liberal she is.
red chevy i believe…not as nice as salazar’s green jag, but respectable at least.
We ask a lot of our elected officials. We are electing someone to oversee our state’s finances, a enourmously complicated job. Lots of qualifications should come into play, and a college degree should be one of them.
C’mon, at least some minimum standards like a college degree, ability to tie your shoes, etc. are important.
Did anyone here actually get smarter when they got their degree?
The college degree has become increasingly important to UMC white people in this country, and at the same time has become vastly overvalued, at times replacing the importance of say, intelligence. . .
When selecting candidates for office, Madison wrote to Alexander Hamilton on the appointment of a candidate as Ambassador or Secretary. I’ll have to see which.
The question was whether the persona was 1) able, 2) capable, and 3) honorable.
People will all have their views. As someone who went to the enth degree to pay the tuition and student loans, to work the job and pay the bills and still go to school. Simply because someone is able, doesn’t mean that they are capable.
Otherwise, the Peter Principle kicks in. For those of use who paid the money, worked the jobs, paid the bills, and still went to school, you know what I mean.
Hillman has private sector experience as the owner of a farm. I have a hard time believing that the people on here actually think Kennedy will win. She has no name ID with the exception of people knowing her as the lady who wrote all those tax increases, where as Hillman has the advantage of already having the title of State Treasurer. Hillman walks away with this one by double digits.
… I have to agree. (Even though “Kennedy” has a wee bit of name recognition as well.) I’m voting for Cary, but Hillman will probably win, I think.
Hillman has name recognition. Maybe I’m a cynic but do you REALLY think most voters will know if Hillman has a college degree? As requested, I am predicting this not based on what I’d like to see happen. But if you’ve met Hillman you’ll know he’s a smart guy and people will appreciate his wheat farmer roots more than you may imagine.
If it wasn’t for Colorado Pols, I wouldn’t be able to tell you who Cary Kennedy is. With such weak name ID 7 weeks out, and with Hillman being a known quantity, I think Hillman will win, depending on how badly Beauprez tanks.
I’ve been all over the state I’ve seen Hillman signs every town I’ve been to. While Kennedy is probably better qualified I don’t she’ll be able to pull it off.
It’s too bad signs don’t vote. While Hillman has stayed away from the population, will not go on TV, and Kennedy has talked to just about anybody that listen. It will be a tight race, but all indications are in her favor (except of course if you go by the amount of yard signs you see).
He started coming to my county over a year ago, and I’m on the Western Slope. I’ve seen him at numerous parades, dinners, breakfasts, and picnics.
has kennedy visited springs? i watch appearances by candidates pretty closely and havent seen anything, but maybe i missed it. or, she is just “staying away” from a population that wouldnt likely vote for her…
Kennedy should, and probably will, be the next treasurer. Hillman is a right wing nut but a pleasant and likeable right wing nut.
The degree thing probably shouldn’t count against him. As has been noted already, Shrub is excellent example of how easy it is to get a college degree.
This was always looking like a close race. I’m wondering how much the Trailhead ennui will hurt Hillman now that his name has become associated with that group……
Last year Hillman was responsible for blocking the smoking ban, he then claimed in the RMN that secondhand smoke wasn’t bad for you.
I think his lack of education shines through, and to be honest, I don’t want somebody without a degree as my state treasurer. I’m a republican and I’ll be voting for Kennedy this year.
No smoking ban? How sad. I for love a nanny government.
He opposed the smoking ban? His stock is going up.
Is important, but it’s certainly not a pre-req. Some people are plenty capable without it. That being said, even if Mark Hillman did have an undergrad degree in business or finance, I’d hardly say that undergraduate training would necessarily make him that much more qualified to be Treasurer. As most know, you learn to do your job on the job – college isn’t vocational training, and undergrad doesn’t really prepare you for much in most cases. I’d certainly say a college degree in finance wouldn’t give you that much of an edge for something as complicated as State Treasurer, at least not anymore so than practical experience and a working knowledge of state finance. It’s much more important that the person be a good administrator anyways – they’re not personally crunching all the numbers folks.
The race is ranked evenly by ColoPols because they make the good point that Kennedy has more money (always important), and she’s not weighed down by the extremely weak GOP ticket. That’s a big deal, and it’s pretty naive to say she doesn’t have a legit shot this year.
Many of those losing or facing stiff opposition in the races across the U.S., Republican or Democrat, are facing stiff opposition against anti-establishment candidates. In many races, incumbency is not a good thing.
As for Governor, Beaupres was a Congressman and we all know what most people think of their Congressman (regardless of party). If that holds true, people will associate Mark Hillman with his days as a Senator and that may actually come back to hurt him.
Not because Kennedy is a great candidate, but because people who do vote will view Hillman as a Senator looking for a job. Nothing more, nothing less. In addition, there are thousands of PERA employees who aren’t happy with Senator/Treasurer Hillman. When taking on a battle, it is very effective if you actually know what you are talking about and able to present.
Relying on talking points doesn’t go that far anymore. People are looking for candidates that actually know a great deal of the content material being presented.
I recently read a poll that showed that 20% of americans approved of the current congress. No surprise there they people never approve of congress. What shocked me and why I remembered it was people’s approval of their congressman was like 70%. Now I am paraphrasing here, but it was a shockingly high number. I think we will see a significant change this election, but having held a post does not mean that that will be detrimental.
It goes a long way toward explaining why something like 99% of incumbents get reelected each time. Gerrymandering and money play a role too…
individual members of congress do a great job of satisfying their constituents and building trust in order to be continually re-elected. people are disgusted by congress as a whole, yet nothing will change because at the same time they are happy with their representative.
I cant remember the number but the amount of pork doled out last year was just atrocious. And that is one of the biggest complaints that you will hear from people is that there is too much pork, but it is cool if it is going there way. People also rant about government expenditures, that the government is getting to big. Uh…people…you demanded this of your politician and you got it.
but when it comes down to it, pork accounts for very little of the entire government budget. as a thoughtful fiscal conservative, im curious to find other parts of government that can be reduced while avoiding the “starve the beast” approach that simply creates more problems. any ideas?
I think there are a lot of areas that we can reduce government spending without starving the beast. For one we need to reduce redundancy in our beauracracy. That includes both regulations that are overly redundant and some staff as well. I think we need to repeal Bush’s tax cuts to increase funding where we need it. I think Iraq is draining us. I hate to say it, and I know I am going to get pounced on, but farm subsidies should go. Thats a start, and my brain is a little fried from my no sleep schedule, but I am glad you broght it up. What about you? What are your thoughts?
i was just glad to see you were on here during a somewhat normal hour! anyway, i agree with you on farm subsidies…as long as theyre going to farmers. im biased since i come from a long lineage of farmers and ranchers, but some of the subsidies have been hijacked by smart people who are in no way farmers. this encourages many uninformed people to ridicule farm subsidies.
one area that especially interests me is military spending. military men often become private contractors and make loads of money after receiving their training and knowledge from the military…i dont know much but it would be interesting to research how much this costs the government. also revamping health care and our prison and law enforcement systems could be crucial, although i havent gotten far with my own ideas on those issues yet. lastly, offering incentives to companies to spur development (such as tax breaks and transmission corridors for the oil and gas industry) should be curtailed to not only save money but make the market fair for renewable energy. of course, the big ones are still military and health care spending.
for oil and gas are not needed (unless you are talking Alaskan gas). The issue really is electrical transmission and that is a big NIMBY issue.
but not just the front range. drive around the western slope, youll see several large transmission corridors for natural gas pipelines. also, KN Energy is in the process of building a large one from WY to IL. Drive along I-80 and youll see all sorts of activity stemming from that. and yes of course, electricity corridors are catamount, hence the Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS.
youre right about it being a NIMBY issue, which is why the current ECP EIS tries so hard to have the corridors go thru federally owned land and avoid private landowners.
I thought I heard somewhere that the majority of farm subsidies go to corporate farms. It was an atrocious number like 70% go to 5 companies, which to me is just another form of coporate welfare which I am also opposed to. I am not against the average farmer and if it is going to them that is fine. Count me among the uninformed.
Every undervalued, low (relatively) paying job has high turn over and I am not surprised that the military is any different. Its like working for a company in Iraq, why drive trucks, cook food, do payroll, etc. in the states when you can get 100k to do it over there. In the military its why get paid 19-25K to be a special forces corporal when I can get 80-90k working for Custer battles (not exact figures).
Corporate welfare is really goading me lately. I think there is a fine line between a bailout (like the airlines) and corporate welfare. Obviously, the government will step in when a disaster strikes that cripples an industry and I am ok with that. What I am not ok with is, like you say, incentives to spur companies into action. They should be incentivized by their stakeholders. We need less status quo and more wow. Implementing that is easier said than done.
Toodles — I think you make a valid observation on farm subsidies. New Zealand just recently did away with all subsidies and they have a pretty vibrant market now. We need a transition — probably something that would span more than one administration — which causes a political problem as no one is willing to take it on. As a total % of the federal budget, ag subsidies account for only about 1% — people look at the USDA budget and see bigger dollars and don’t realize the bulk of the USDA budget goes for things like food stamps, WIC, Forest Service, etc. I think you will see the next farm bill authorization move towards conservation practices and renewable energy development.
Yes, reduce size and complexity of government. Hire business types to create more efficiency and less waste. Have their jobs depend on how well they cut the red tape. If you don’t make efficiency and simplicity a priority, waste and inefficiency are inevitable.