President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 15, 2007 07:06 PM UTC
86 Comments
Seems like there are two very serious campaigns in town (so far)–Richardson and Obama. It’ll be interesting as Hillary’s people burst on the scene as well. Edwards doesn’t seem to garner much enthusiasm.
It’s odd; Edwards is saying the right words and for the most part seems to believe them. But his slick looks are *too* good for some people.
Hillary isn’t going to make it through the primaries if she continues on with the “ongoing substantial presence in Iraq” line.
won’t cause her any long term problems. As a matter of fact, she’ll benefit by putting all the other Dem candidates in the position of having to answer the same question. I’d be surprised if any of them said to completely abandon the region. If they agree some troops might need to stay in a different role, they are playing follow the leader.
Good strategy on her part.
And when he was in town at Auraria there was plenty of enthusiasm for him. I dont think he gets much media attention, but I think that has more to do with his top two competitors.
Seems as if all the bigwigs are democrat supporters. The question is when will Obama and Hillary tax their gazillions for more social programs?
Assuming you and those who demonize the Democratic Party like you are correct, Obama or Hillary would have to wait until they take the oath of office for President in ’09 before they “tax their gazillions more for social programs,” since I doubt President Bush would allow them to pass now. More likely, they’ll be raising taxes to pay for the inordinate debt that President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have racked up over the past 6 years.
I’d rate it more likely that their debt status is related to the fact that, after a few years of quarterly mandated 10% firings, they can no longer attract good people. And to the fact that, like many other telecom companies, they over-installed fiber and are now sitting on a ton of dark fiber doing nothing.
So, I guess the fact that Level # is (or was) backed by buffet makes him an idiot as well. IIRC, more of the new top billionaires are actually dems. Personally, I would have thought that they would have preferred libertarians, but oh well….
so despite his near-unparalleled brilliance in investing, many a wingnut will say that yes, he’s an idiot. I recall that either Lamborn or Crank making a crack about not caring what a Nebraska billionaire had to say about tax policy at some CD5 GOP primary debate.
He speaks well; is very populist; and, has a physical presence. It’s supposed to be a beautiful weather day. He should draw thousands.
I was coming down with Obama-mania even before the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and now have a full-blown fever. While the pundits focus on his style -which is impressive enough- I’m more enthralled with his content, or, more specifically, the tone of his content. He’s the first unadulterated “voice of reason” I’ve heard in a long, long time. I like this guy!
As for raising taxes, rather than point out that our last budget surplusses were under Clinton, and that our deficit has sky-rocketed since, imposing the need of raising taxes on whoever follows the irresponsible ideologue now in office, I’ll make the less popular argument that we are grossly under-taxed in his nation! We should be taxing all public bads more heavily (gasoline -with commercial exemptions, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.), and using the revenues to subsidize public goods (cycling and public transportation, planting trees, recycling, rehab clinics, etc.). Beyond that, we should tax incomes over $150,000 (at most) per person per year at at least 50%: That money is earned in the context of an institutional arrangement cooperatively produced by society as a whole, and a huge debt is owed to society as a whole for facilitating such fantastic personal wealth. As for the argument that such high taxes of super-wealth produces disincentives to investment and the production of such wealth in general, I think it’s B.S.: People are not working for their 8000th stick of daily butter, or their third beach house. They’re motivated by subtler incentives, like the thrill of the game, or fame, or power. Just like penny-ante poker, all you need to keep it interesting, and keep them playing, is a symbolic risk of gain or loss. And half of the profits over $150,000 per person per year is a bit more than symbolic!
I think we are taxed plenty, but we spend so stupidly! I hate taxes, and I don’t hate them because I hate government. I hate them because my car gets trashed in a pot hole, or I hear about another failing school that we don’t/can’t do anything about, or someone can’t get a student loan, but someone from the party who’s supposed to stop this crap gets 800 million to a bridge to nowhere or a senator from WA state insists we lease planes from Boeing as opposed to buying them for less!
When I think about how much money we waste, it makes me want to give a loud Howard Dean-ish scream!
If I spent money the way the government spends money, I would be typing this from jail.
We need a balanced budget amendment, not more taxes. And we need leaders who will honor what they say about spending on the campaign trail (yes Bush, I’m talking to you!).
I would also like to keep the tax cuts. The cuts didn’t cause problems, it was Republicans in congress
Owens came in as gov. saying that we had lots of waste in state gov. In addition, he promised that he would cut the waste and build T-Rex, so we should vote the 2 billion dollar version of it (that would use money that was saved). Once he got in, he was not able to do any cuts. Instead, he illegally borrowed from expected future federal highway support to create a 15 Billion T-Rex (with loads of bond money going to his buddies).
So, I see all screaming about needed cuts, but where are they?
So how about instead,
and then we can do real tax cuts for all of us.
Either that, or I’m missing yours.
I’m frustrated with spending. I think we’re taxed enough. We just waste a ton of money of stuff.
If I’m not mistaken, Colorado has a balanced budget article in the constitution. We need one on the federal level.
Also, I wasn’t saying we need more tax cuts right now. I want to keep the cuts that have already been enacted. But we need to spend tax dollars a lot wiser. If people saw positive results from paying taxes, they wouldn’t have such a problem paying them.
How do you propose that we pay down our current debt?
The deficits that are being ran are because of reagan’s and W’s tax cuts. Once Poppa Bush and Clinton boosted taxes AND did cuts did we have a balanced budget (well, only if you ignore that we had some texas style accounting even back then; now it is much worse). We need to balance the budget first. That means that we need to cut back on W’s tax cuts AND cut more spending. Otherwise, please detail some spending cuts that we can do politically. Once the budget is balanced, then we (that is we the people) need to push a balanced budget amendment and force it on leaders that seem to love deficit spending.
It needs to stop. As it is, a number of economists are saying that America is already bankrupted, but I would like to think that they are incorrect.
I think I’m on the same page with you now. And I’ll admit, I do not have the time nor the resources to give you a line item break down of what should be cut. But that needs to be outlined before anything else is done. If we roll back the tax cuts or raise taxes above that, what’s to say that the problem isn’t expanded more? The arguement has been made that simply putting a cap on spending would equal fighting over smaller portions. Raising them without any idea of what to cut would just start the fighting over more dollars.
What would you cut? (And please don’t just say “the war” 🙂 )
First, I also think that the war needs to continue. In fact, I have yet to hear anybody say that the war must stop. I have heard a lot of dems say that we need to get out of Iraq, but that is not the same thing. They simply want us to focus on what we were suppose to do; Al Qaeda
But with that said, we can look over the past money and get back billions. In particular, from KBR. I am amazed that the dems have not gone after this with a flamethrower. But all of that freebe crap that W’s admin has been giving to kbr needs to stop and it must be bid out.
We need to look over the military budget a lot closer WRT to private contracts. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex and I think that he was speaking of exactly our current condition.
When FDR started “handouts” for the umemployed, it was workfare. It was never intended to be simple handouts. At the height of our richness, JFK converted it from workfare to welfare. Well, nice experiment, but it has failed in my book. We need to get back to workfare. The states should have in -shape ppl work 2-4 days / week, offer daycare (staffed by some of those that are in workfare). These ppl should do work such as park construction and clean up. In addition, they can help out at a number of levels. If they can not do the work, then better hope that they can get help elsewhere.
Medical is killing us. W’s new drug program is a total joke (anybody see 60 minutes recently?). It is simply a handout from the gov to the drug companies. The idea that the feds will buy the drugs at prices set by the drug companies is silly. We need to act like what we are; their largest customer. If they do not like the fact that we should get the lowest prices, then we will go without that drug maker. It may mean that some companies will howl about it, but so what.
Speaking of Medical, I think that Schwarzenegger’s has it nearly right. I am starting to agree that we need some level of socialized medicine. I do not want to see a cradle to grave all inclusive system, but more of a cradle to grave check-ups to general fixes. If you need surgery or some thing special, then you use insurance. But everybody needs check-ups. In addition, everybody should have vaccines, etc. Basically, the insurance and medical system is totally broke. US and the states are being stuck with the tab for the bulk of the lower end, so lets get it over with.
As much as I think that W is our worse leader ever, I agree mostly with his NASA vision. But I think that NASA is heading down the wrong road. Direct Launcher is a lower cost alternative to doing the same thing, and will get us there much quicker. In addition, COTS is absolutely the RIGHT way to do things. By the time that Orion makes space, the I suspect that Spacex and Bigelow will be circling the moon. If that happens, then Ares I and V are worthless.
Now, it is great to talk of spending cuts, but we need to roll back his tax cuts. In particular, his tax breaks for the oil companies are a TOTAL joke. They should be rolled out of there. In addition, a number of his other tax cuts should as well. What I find interesting is that the top 10 richest Americans have posted against W’s tax cuts and are in now in the process of moving their money from dollars to euros BECAUSE w’ did his tax cuts.
And one tax that I would like to see come about is a gas,deasil tax that increments over time. Simply put, every 6 months, the tax increases .25 or .50 / gallon. Make sure that it can not be repealed for 4 or more years. That tells America that oil will go up in price but it will take time. That is time for Americans to move off of 15 mpg autos. In return, we kill off CAFE and other attempts at pushing regulation on autos. This will encourage Americans to move off of oil to something else. What else depends entirely on who can do a better job. In particular, the only way that hydrogen will come about is with trillions of dollars of support from the feds. It is the absolute worst option for us. But if the feds do provide funding for it, then it will have to compete with fairly. Fortunately, that means either biodeasil (via algae) or electrical will win.
During the Depression, FDR started a variety of programs to put men to work: The civilian conversation corps and the WPA. Those were good programs and men did honest work and were paid for that work. The welfare programs were originally designed for women who were widows or who had been abandoned by the fathers of their children. It was specifically DESIGNED so that mothers DID NOT have to work but could stay home and take care of their children. The only requirement was that the mothers were poor and without a husband….
JFK did not touch welfare programs. You just can not make this stuff up.
Johnson did institute the War on Poverty and liberalized welfare regulations and did a whole lot to get resources to people who were poor…..including a lot of work programs…such as Job Corps…
Welfare work requirements began in the 70s or 80s and culminated with the welfare reform of 1996 which limited the time families could be on public assistence and had a work requirement.
It pisses me off when bloggers or anyone think they have no responsibility to be historically accurate. What is the famous phrase: You are entitled to your
own opinion but not your own facts.
It has been a number of decades (literally) since I have looked over this history. Do not get me wrong. Since 1960, I still consider Kennedy the best president. But I think that welfare needs to go. We need the == of workfare. Basically, unemployed single mother should have to work like a regular person and use daycare/preschool (provided by gov). If they are physically or mentally unable to work, that is a different matter. But the vast majority are not that way.
The fact of government waste and the actual need for revenues may seem inextricably connected, but they’re not. Of course we want to reduce, or eliminate waste, to get rid of earmarks, to increase efficiency. But saying that we should hate taxes because of waste is like saying you hate breathing because not all of the oxygen you take in is utilized. Work out, develop your cardiovascular system, but keep breathing in the meanwhile.
Simple fixes for government waste are doomed to create more problems than they solve. A balanced budget amendment won’t eliminate inefficiency, it will just create spending distortions (and contortions) that will probably have destructive effects on human welfare. To attack inefficiency, you have to attack process, not outcome.
We have to institutionalize incentives for efficient allocation of our national resources, benefits that go to he who spends least rather than to he who spends most. That’s the challenge, and I’m all for confronting it. But a balanced budget amendment by itself will just produce an equally dysfunctional grab at a smaller pot, leaving losers not of the least useful or least efficient programs, but of the one’s that serve the weakest and poorest members of society.
As much as I decry the poor management in our schools, the truth is we get a pretty big bang for our buck. Our schools are a lot better than a lot of people think (but, alas, a lot worse than they can and should be). And there may be potholes in the roads, but you take a bit too much for granted the existance of those roads surrounding the potholes. The amenities of life cost a lot of money, even when a lot of it is wasted. If you come up with a magic formula for eliminating waste, then, certainly, our need for revenue (whether more or less than what we currently generate) would be reduced. But, until then, waste is a part of the cost of doing business. Keep breathing.
We take too much for granted. We take roads and schools and police and armies and currency and numerous vital and beneficial services for granted. I know how much I pay in taxes: I wish I didn’t have to. But ask me if I would rather keep my money and lose what it buys, or lose my money and keep what it buys, and to me it is absolutely a no-brainer.
I guess it’s my fault, but I didn’t say I hate paying taxes because there is no use for them. What I said (or tried to say) is that I hate paying taxes and then see the money be wasted.
I would be fine with the amount I pay if we could actually improve our schools and improve our infastructure. But we spend more money than ever on these things and it just gets lost.
A balanced budget amendment is just one step.
Mayor Bloomberg insituted a wonderful plan in New York where departments get a percentage of the money they save to put towards employee bonuses. That’s a step in the right direction.
Colorado limits the amount of proposals legislators get to propose during a legislative session. If there were a feesible way to limit the number of amendments offered on spending measures, that would be nice too.
But the problem is an extension of the way politics work. Elected officials are rewarded with terms based on their percieved success. If money and programs are the measurement of an official’s success, then the problem isn’t going away anytime soon. And how is that solved?
I wasn’t aware of Bloomberg’s program, but it is exactly what I meant when I said “creating incentives to spend less rather than spend more” (or something like that). And we seem to be in basic agreement about why money is wasted (political rewards go to he who diverts money to his constituents). I still disagree a bit about completely conflating the two issues of paying taxes and reducing waste, even though that is certainly in accord with conventional wisdom, and maybe logic as well. Let me put it this way: There will always be waste (according to the laws of thermodynamics, if nothing else). In fact, over the centuries, waste has been reduced to levels that would amaze our forebears (much of what we call corruption now was simply the most efficient way to get it done in the past -tax farming, for instance). So, from a very broad historical perspective, we have been marvelously successful at reducing waste in government (in proportional, not absolute, terms!). But from a very accurate modern perspective, wasteful spending is insanely out of control.
My point is, that will always be the case! People will always consider whatever waste has not been eliminated to be too much waste. There are many similar narratives: Health care is horrible! But, no one is bleeding me to relieve me of my impure blood. Education is a mess! But literacy and numeracy, while perhaps dipping slightly, are quite high from a global and historical perspective. Life is hard! But can you imagine people from almost any era or region of human history contemplating the lives many of us (including me) live today, and then listening to my complaints! They’d think I was nuts! This is a paradise few could have imagined throughout most of history.
So, there is no absolute measure of wasteful spending that means anything: Waste is inevitable, and how much or how little there is can only be measured in comparative terms. Are we more or less wasteful than other nations (my guess: generally much less)? Are we more or less wasteful than we were historically? Probably less (correct me if I’m wrong, not by citing balanced budgets, but by citing returns on investments). Is this an argument for complacency? Absolutely not! Is it an argument that the cost of government includes waste? Absolutely. That is my whole point: Decrying taxes because too much of it is wasted, or saying that you would feel okay about paying taxes if you saw a better return, is, to me, a red herring. Until we do better, waste is a cost of doing business. That line is my bottom line in this (friendly) debate.
So then what amount of waste is acceptable? 1%? 2%? I wonder what the wasted amount is now. Just because we made improvements doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t wage a constant battle against wasteful spending. Plus, in my mind, there is a difference between waste (construction crews breaking equipement, not being at 100% effeicency,etc) and spending a couple extra billion to lease planes as opposed to buying them.
Anyway, a good website to keep tabs on what other states are doing is http://www.governing.com
They ran a huge piece about local governments and cutting spending a few weeks ago. I highly recommend that site for political junkies.
In risk management terms, the appropriate level of waste is the level at which it costs more to find it than to stop it.
Of course, “cost” includes things like “if an entire F14 worth of parts goes missing and winds up in enemy hands, how much does it cost to secure the country from our enemy’s posession of F14s?” In state government, you don’t have to worry about those things so much. 🙂
Let’s try – “costs more to find it than to let it happen”.
I got a kick out of it either way…..but you forgot something.
What if Utah gets ahold of one of our F-14s?
…the complete range of practical obstacles involved, and other messy social realities. Microeconomic analyses dealing with the full array of social institutions become quite complicated (but very fruitful).
But I’m sort of getting rhetorically channeled into a position that I don’t hold, while trying to explain one that I do. Haners comes back with “what amount of waste is acceptible?” As little as possible, or, as P.R. puts it with such microeconomic elequence, at the point where the benefits outweight the costs. Please, don’t recast me as saying anything else! I’m just saying (“…he whines pathetically…”) that the mere FACT of waste is not an argument against the social value of paying (and having to pay) taxes. That’s all, folks! I ain’t sayin’ nuttin’ udder dan dat! If you’re going to dispute with me, Sir Haners, please dispute what I AM saying, not what I’m not!
I had only skimmed your post before answering. Reading it more completely, I see that you had touched upon “messy social realities,” in your own unique way.
I guess that’s the problem with blogging. Sometimes we get painted into a corner where we weren’t even going. My question about what was an acceptable amount of waste was nothing personally targeted at you as much as I was merely bringing up (or at least trying to) a point. A lot of this stuff is messy because there isn’t an easy way of measuring a lot of what we’re talking about.
I promise I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. But sorry none the less.
Come on, let me buy you a virtual beer. It’s cheaper than a real one. 🙂
It’s a date
Public or private, there is always money spent that
A) Almost every reasonalbe person would agree is wasteful, or
B) You think is fine, but I don’t.
Cutting waste, other than the most egregious, is a a feel good measure that everyone can agree on. Basically, though, it’s bullshit. Look at the budget cuts our state went through the last several years. What’s the waste? Roads? Education? Police?
Our federal government taxes at about 18% of GDP, give or take, year after year, almost since the founding of America. It has gone up in times of war – Hello, George Bush – and down at other times. A lot of it used to be “hidden” in import levies. Our total tax burdenis about 35%, all levels of government.
Now, if you think that’s a lot, consider that Sweden is almost double that at 65%. Their unemployment is a tad above ours, the economy is doing fine, and nobody has to worry about health care. A lot of tax money is going into R&D, which is all but forgotten in the US. “Everybody” is on broadband. A lot of tax revenues, in a nutshell, invest in the people. Good health is an investment; it costs more to delay care than provide it.
America spends grossly disproportionate amounts of tax money on the military; we spend as much as the rest of the world combined. That is money that for the most part is a dis-investment. Yes, some R&D shakes out into the private economy, but imagine if that money were granted directly. Building a jet provides some temporary jobs, but it doesn’t provide a service for the next 100-150 years like a bridge.
I got the Sweden info from a very recent Paul Krugman article.
I just think that the existence of waste (not any specific quantity) in inevitable, and therefore the existence of waste is not a reasonable argument against making an investment into something in which waste exists. I’m all for identifying and eliminating specific instances of waste, and improving the efficiency of the wasteful system in general. Nuance, my friend, nuance! 🙂
I offered up ideas on how to balance elsewhere. Lets assume that there is a ton of waste (as parsing pointed out, every org has it). Then please come up with some politically palatable savings ideas. I was all behind cagw until they change into a simple front-end for companies to get contracts. So, what ideas do you have?
I’m going to try and find some practices that can or should be eliminated. I would direct you to one of my other posts where I dropped some ideas
I have pet peeves. This is what I would like to see eliminated:
1) Travel by politicians and public employees to conventions of any kind.
2) Hiring of public relations firms by public organizations or elected officials
3) Public funding of conventions
4) Hiring of consultants unless there is a specific technical need which can not be met within the civil service.
5) Reimbursement of any meals or other entertainment expenses.
6) Reimbursement of fees or membership in professional organizations for elected officials or public employees.
7) Reimbursement of tutition.
8) Payment for unused sick leave at retirement by public employees
Period. Make them lean and mean.
It’s akin to mandatory sentencing: Specifying precisely such things prevents case-sensitive decision-making. Several of the things on your list should probably not be funded most or all of the time, but I would submit that a blanket prohibition on funding all of them under any circumstances would probably have some serious negative unintended consequences. Some of the things you listed serve as incentives to recruit quality human capital, for instance, which is an important goal to preserve. The way to go about it is to implement a system, a process, for separating functional from dysfunctional spending, rather than list what is functional and what isn’t, which is doomed to be applied in contexts in which it would be inapplicable.
While I agree with 2 (which makes it seem like the politician has something to hide) and 3, the rest that you propose to eliminate actually happens routinely in the business world. I am curious as to why you would eliminate them, in particular 7 and 8. It only makes sense to encourage ALL employees to continue seeking education. And as to 8, if they can not take it as pay, then they will simply not show up on days, which hurts us more.
but a general approach. I believe we need to bring the market to politics: Politicians and public servants in general should be turned into political entrepreneurs, profiting from designing and implementing effective, cost-effective programs, and not profitting when failing to do so. I did get into some specifics about how that might look, in another thread, though for the most part I’m still operating at the conceptual, rather than practical, stage of development. And, though I would go on, my three-year-old daughter is attacking me at the moment, so….
X-prize
Even here
Right now, I have found 1 politician who is very interested in the X-prize idea. In fact, they were trying to figure out how to make the idea work. So hopefully, they will shortly make it happen. If so, we can get back to making gov. work.
(Who am *I* to call anyone windy?!)
I have been on the net since the 80’s. You learn to assume the better rather than the worse of ppl.
I believe you once asked me for ideas on how to cut waste in government spending. I cut and pasted this from a different thread. It’s about aligning the interests of politicians with the public they represent.
I’ll try…
Like Thoreau, who inspired Ghandi and MLK but did little of practical value himself, I tend to be an idea-guy, hoping that others will work out the nuts-and-bolts of how to implement those ideas. Let’s start with a political innovation that actually does, to some extent, align the interests of individual politicians with the interests of those they represent: Democracy. The fact that politicians periodically have to win the support of the public they serve contributes something to their accountability, and to the alignment of their interests (i.e., getting re-elected) with the public interest (i.e., making sure that people want to re-elect you). I’m not trying to open the can of worms about the imperfections in democracy. I am well aware of them. In fact, even dictatorships have some element of alignment between the interests of the dictator and the interests of a public that he serves: He has to have enough support (often of the military) to be able to control the country.
The point is, and your question asks, how to do better. I’m going to think “out-loud” about that, and ask your indulgence for the relative stupidity of these catalyst ideas. Perhaps we could loosen up, but re-vamp, the ability of politicians to profit while in office. We would have to make all such profiteering transparant, so that no deal that satisfied one faction at the cost of the general public would be a winning strategy (and we could compose laws that continue to prohibit that). But let’s back up to basics first, and see where it takes us.
If the goal is to allow politicians to profit by serving the public interest, one of the biggest challenges is determing how to define the “public interest” in a relatively objective way. That would require the creation of a very complex algorithm involving a large number of diversely-oriented experts on various aspects of the systems in which we are embedded (e.g., ecological, economic, cultural, etc.) and a political process to balance competing values and interests concerning the relative importance of those systems and the conflicting agendas within some of them. That’s a daunting task, but is something akin to a 21st century constitutional convention: Keep it simple, short, broad, and brilliant. “The Public Interest Algorithm,” or “The Algorithm” for short, would be the next step in political evolution. There would be compromises in its composition, and debates over its ratification: It would be a huge historical moment. I doubt we’re ready for such a step yet, but just as John Locke helped sow the seeds for the American experiment 100 years before the event, it doesn’t hurt to start talking about it.
The way to use the algorithm would be to create a kind of “pay-for-performance” schmeme for politicans. Kick-backs, in essence, would be from the public as a whole, rather than from factions within it.
Another approach might be to create some kind of literal political currency, facilitating a more sophisticated market for political exchange. We know that legislators already trade votes (“you vote for my bill, and I’ll vote for yours”). That’s not such a bad thing: It is a form of disparate interests trading with each other for mutual benefit. If there were some currency that could be used, that was limited to the political arena, to buy and sell political initiatives (using, remember, currency that is solely based on political initiatives), we would move past the inefficient bi-lateral barter system and move toward a true political market. To give you an idea of what I mean, consider nations gathered for talks on global warming. We might want nations rich in rain forests to reduce deforestation, but they will want something in return. Maybe we don’t want to give them what we want, but a third country does, and maybe that third country wants something from us that we are willing to give in exchange for the rain-forest countries to reduce deforestation. Now consider that the more issues and more participants involved, the more able they are to exchange to mutual benefit. It’s exactly like the evolution of economic trade from barter to currency: It frees the participants from the double-bind of having to have what each other wants in quantities comparable in worth. Just as in economic trade, political trade would increase the efficiency with which we arrive at mutually beneficial outcomes.
It’s just as applicable within a country as between countries: Christian fundamentalists want this, social liberals want that, environmentalists a third thing, and so on. I don’t particularly want to compromise with Christian fundamentalists, but we’re not going to get anywhere unless we make deals: We’ll give you this, you give us that. Again, the more multi-lateral and multi-issue the trading, the better. But, just like with barter, the degree to which it can be multi-lateral and multi-issue is logistically limited if we trade political initiatives rather than buy and sell them in an open market. If you are asking, “What, exactly, does that mean?” my answer is “I don’t know.” Like I said, I’m thinking out loud. But considering the fact that we can and do trade positions on issues, locally, nationally and internationally, and that we would produce more political “wealth” (more people getting more of what they want from the political process) by involving more issues and more parties in a single trading-process, and considering that the same exact evolution occured in economic markets, I suspect that there is some meaningful way to implement what I’m talking about here.
Well, this may not have been as practical as you had wished, but at least, I hope, it provides some food for thought.
So why is it that states with balanced budget laws seem to do ok? The truth is, that a balanced budget amendment will leave us more money (now more deficits and ultimate payoffs of reagan/W debts). IIRC, the interest alone is something like 10% of the budget. That alone would have paid nicely for W’s wars.
Now, with that said, oh, yeah, we will still have waste. But it will prevent one headache, and mean that the president just needs to be a good business manager (as opposed to ones that see to run companies into the ground). Once we have a balanced budget, then it will be easier to attack the process and stop the waste.
There is no good reason why our Federal Government shouldn’t have one in one form or another.
google is your friend.
I was just speculating that balanced budget amendments would lead to cuts of vulnerable (sometimes vital), rather than truly expendible, programs. If so, I would have an objection. If not, then the benefits may well outweight the costs. Does anyone have any empirical evidence to illuminate the issue?
My home state-doesn’t have a balanced budget amendment. Is that evidence enough? 🙂
Are you Californicating me again? 🙂
(That was mostly for Parsing’s benefit, who pointed out to me, when I gushed over the brilliance of that phrase, that it’s been around awhile).
Well, I was born there.
There is no doubt that some vital programs will be cut. In addition, we will make a number of stupid ones . But that happens regardless.
Just a few of these.
Lots of bad cuts and laws get passed. But it will continue. As you said the process MUST be improved. But that does not mean that it can not happen with a law that prevents these idiots from spending at will.
I learned that phrase after I did all of my laundry in one load to save money. I had a pen in a pocket.
That was the most expensive 50 cents I ever saved….
My bad, sorry
But then again, I see a lot of that in the regular business world. The difference is that in the business world, we cover up large wasteful expenses by bigger charges and profits.
I heard he was helping run Obama’s campaign in CO. Anyone else hear that?
Knaus is a first rate loser and universally despised.
WTF are you talking about???? The reason the Dems are in the position they are today is because of Knaus’ single-minded strategy in 2000 and 2001. He focused like a laser beam on taking the State Senate, which we did, for the first time in generations. That win enabled the Party to take an agressive stance in redistricting, and allowed us to adopt Dem plans for both Congressional and Legislative redistricting. Without those plans, we’d still be sitting at a 5-2 GOP Congressional split and a likely GOP majority in both houses!!!!
After leaving the State Dems, Knaus went on to lead a VERY successful 527 effort that was a key in taking both houses of the Legislature. You may not like the guy, but he IS effective.
As a staunch Rep, I have to admit that I like him. If our nominee is McCain and the Dem’s is Obama, I might vote for him (really REALLY don’t like McCain). I remember when he was running in 04 and how much Reps who served with him in Illinos liked him. He may be liberal, but I don’t think he’s against building a concensus. He carries the perception that he is moderate, and he hasn’t been in Washington for forever. I think Obama is the best shot that Dems have
is to team up Obama with Richardson. I think that the ticket would be hard to beat. Both are moderates.
Richardson is a moderate, but Obama I don’t think so. At least when it comes to crime Obama seems really far out of the main stream to me.
http://thehill.com/l…
The only way to beat the GOP nominee-apparent Giuliani is Hillary. She’ll beat him in NY and take Pennsylvania,,,and with Richardson taking New Mexico and let’s say we take one more western state, the Dems win.
for the republicans. Just as W and his team of liars did a lot of damage to republicans, I think that Hillary would do the same for the opposite side. She might make a good leader, but she has also caused a LOT of polarization.
Republicans will stay home rather than vote for Giuliani, a liberal who is pro-choice, pro-gun control, wore a dress for a fundraiser. So, maybe Hillary won’t excite some Democrats, but Dems will vote for her anyway, but Rudy really will turn off Republican right wing.
Not bloody likely! Giuliani could where a dress to vote on election day and the R’s would still come out in force. This is Hillary we’re talking about! She’s to R’s what W. is to D’s. It would be a hell of a race though.
I actually WANT Hilary Rodham Clinton to win the nomination… why? Easy… she is by far the easiest candidate to beat. I would vote for a woman president but the majority of the country won’t (according to polling data). And the other *half* of the country will go vote AGAINST Hilary…
GOPundit. This is exactly why I DON’T WANT Hillary to win the nomination. I like her and respect her intelligence, but I think so many Americans will come out in droves to vote against her. I know it is cliche to say so, but she is a very polarizing figure.
I have loads of friends that are hard core conservatives (some were (and one still is) total insiders in the R’s) and while they have expressed disdain for W, it is not even close to what they have to say about Hillary. I believe that if she wins, the final results will be nearly the same as Kerry vs. W.. There is no doubt in my mind that Kerry would have made a better president than W, but others voted otherwise. Even if you want to simply blame the hatchet job and quite probable voter fraud for the Rs, I do think that the dems will be against the same issues on the next election.
Skip what the local Rs are saying about all this. Several here were spouting off that Romney was the clear winner, but all the current polls show Guiliani. That should tell you that many here are disconnected from the national going ons and saying what they hope for (big difference). Simply keep in mind the shear number of skeletons that she has(white water, foster, files in the white house, etc). The R’s did Kerry a terrible dis-service to troops that have seen real action, in basically calling him a coward, but if Hillary wins the dems, then the presidency is their gift to the Rs.
“Several here were spouting off that Romney was the clear winner”
We all spout off at times. Hence the reason why this is addicting. I find it interesting to study who is here. It appears to be a very eclectic group; We have a few state employees, a few lobbyists, a few students, I think a few who are FUDing here for politicians, and of course, it appears that we have at least 2 minor politicians(not certain about that). But there some here who are tracking what others say and are interested in figuring them out as much as I do. But what I do find interesting, is that few if any, seem to have a real finger on the national pulse, though they seem to know the state level. But I guess this is ColoradoPols, not US and Colorado Pols.
Laughable theory!!!!
Giuliani’s liberal stances will potentially be able to put California in play, and the question becomes can Hillary beat Giuliani there? Already Hollywood is flocking to Obama and the northern California bastions (San Fran et al.) would probably prefer the more charismatic, liberal candidate as well. And then the you have to ask can Hillary and the Dems win without California, even if Richardson hands them the southwest.
I don’t think they can.
He is soft on gangs and drug dealer?
http://thehill.com/l…
According to the article, Obama voted against laws that unfairly targeted minorities for prosecution. He also voted “present” (which, I’m assuming means “I’m here but not going to vote on this”) on a bill that made carrying 15 tabs of Xstacy as bad as forcibly raping a woman – at knifepoint. Then he missed a vote coming back from a trip because his daughter was sick.
People are going to try and “mine” his voting record for something to attack, but being soft on crime won’t work.
is how the ad will start and it will rightfully portray Obama as an out of touch liberal. For all his talk about being able to reach out and bridge gaps cultural votes like these mean a lot more to people then empty rhetoric.
The ads can conjure up some scary music and say what you mentioned, but it isn’t a strong attack.
You and I know that if he had voted the other way they could say he wasn’t standing up for the black community who was unfairly targeting by implementing these laws.
Will it play with average voter guy? I suppose we’ll see.
But I don’t think we can label Obama as weak on crime based on the article.
According to the link, He is being backed by the police that he worked with. They did say that he is looking out for both sides (not just one), and that sounds like something that this country needs. Desperately.
Ted Street, president of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police – a group that endorsed Obama in 2004 – said the senator was immensely helpful in working with police organizations when it came to death-penalty reform.
Laimutis Nargelenas, a lobbyist for the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, said that while Obama did at times vote on the side of “individual rights … [rather] than the ability of law enforcement to get things done,” he was always an independent vote who was very thoughtful on law-and-order issues.
just what we need!
Look, W is not so quietly turning American in Germany 1939. That is NOT what we need. OTH, we do not need to totally disregard all of security. There will always be a trade-off. Obama appears to making good choices on these as well as offering good alternatives. While it is good that leaders know which choices to make, they should also be capable of coming up with alternative solutions if they know the current ones are bad.
and a YLS grad too, I think……..go Elis!
Is that Obama for Colroado organization is getting off to the wrong start with the self-appointed all talk no action Raf Naboa in charge.
God help them.
Who is Raf Naboa ? Just curious.