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
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
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
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 26, 2007 09:10 PM UTC
10 Comments
I attended a Newt Gingrich event last week in Denver. Not that I’m a big fan of Newt’s but to see what he’s up to.
His talk was very interesting.
His presentation was focused on developing solutions that make government actually work. He compared a world “that works” where we can track UPS/FedEx packages and withdraw money from ATMs world-wide with government solutions/systems that “don’t work”. His point was FedEx/UPS track 11 million packages a day and God knows how many interconnected ATMs there are that can flawlessly process financial transactions.
The examples he used for government that does not work were immigration examples: (1) our government can’t track visitors to our county, (2) illegal immigrants (even when handled by the police multiple times) aren’t kicked out of the country; (3) we can’t find and apprehend people even when 20+ people use the same social secutity number. He closed by saying that our government can’t issue visas to US citizens to visit Mexico and Canada, but promises to solve the illegal immigration problem by issuing 12 million X visas illegal immigrants over one year. Right.
He said that the problem is that government is focused on policy rather than on implementation and actual solutions that work. A policy debate is like debating whether we should drive to LA or DC. However, if the car has no engine, the policy debate is pointless. He made the case that government should be focused on solutions and implementation.
I’m afraid that hoping that the Senate will enact sensible energy policies is misplaced. They’ve had more than 30 years to do this work, and have failed to do much of anything. Even if they could strain and poop out an energy policy, real-world implementation of that policy is another thing altogether.
Lack of an energy program is a critical weakness for America in my view, but it won’t get solved in or by Congress.
Maybe, we should require that all Senators drive to Washington DC and pay for the gas out of their own pockets. When I lived in DC, one of the major impediments to changes in taxicab fares was the griping by Congressmen who had to pay those fares.
You had me giggling on that. Just picturing Pelosi and Reid up there with pained expressions on their faces, givin’ birth to something meaningful.
Implementation is the key, you’re right. Don’t think Newt’s comparison between Fed Ex packages and immigrants is legitimate, but the point is the Feds know how to debate but don’t know how to implement.
I’ve always thought that the Feds should stick to providing the funds for State and local governments to implement the priorities. Of course, it is naive to think DC will provide funding without strings attached, but Colorado knows what Colorado needs better than DC does (and that includes some of the DC regulars from Colorado).
The CAFE standards in the energy bill is a start, but didn’t CO sign on with other Western states to provide 20% of our states’ energy needs through renewables by 2020? If so, why do we need a federal RES to muddy the waters?
Recently, I encountered a real world example of how electric utilities will meet the 20% requirement our state legislators thunk up.
A friend of mine has a house that’s way, way off grid and he generates his electric power via solar panels. He’s easily 2 or 3 miles from the nearest electric pole. NONE of his power will EVER be wheeled on to the grid.
The local private electric company approached him to “buy” his solar power. The idea is that they can now count his solar generation capacity towards the 20% government mandate applicable to them. Should it count? Nope. Will it count? Yep.
It’s all about real-world implementation.
Newt emphasized that quantification should be part of assessing government in the same way that quantification is used to measure and improve quality in the private sector. What’s often missing from political debate are facts and any attempt to quantify the problem we want government to solve.
Implementation is never perfect, for anything. But someone needs to tell the states that aren’t exploring an RES that they need to… A nationwide RES would benefit the entire country.
Colorado was the first state to ever establish an RES of 20% by 2020, we’re golden. Therefore, we have a real chance to become a leading energy exporter in the West. A federal RES would have given us a chance to further bolster our own economies.
A Renewable Energy Standard would employ the use of solar and wind energy… both of which do not create hazardous emissions. Therefore, a move to these clean forms of energy can greatly reduce the current global warming emissions. Why wouldn’t we want to make sure this gets implemented effectively?
If anyone has a problem with implementation strategies, go out and get invloved. It can be surprisingly effective.
which is why we write about how crappy the implementation is (not sure if I just cut myself down or not).
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m still not sold on the idea of the Feds mandating to the states their idea of an RES. I’d much rather work with the western states and establish the West as the best and the leader for renewables.
Colorado is golden. We’ve got some of the best wind, great solar, plenty of dead/dying wood, good research institutions, the political will, the social will and businesses ready and able to invest. We’re increasing transmission lines to get that energy to the markets where needed and we have a Governor willing to work on the issue.
Why would we want the Feds to come in and muck everything up, unless they’re willing to bolster what we’re already doing, as you mentioned.
I just don’t want to spend it talking to some person in a fancy blue coat that says “Environment Colorado”. I’ve a;ways wondered how much those coats cost…
That said, I think you guys are trying so keep on keepin on. Maybe just refine some of your tactics. WRA is an excellent organization that has really made progress, send some of your manpower their way if possible.
Even though Ritter promised to involve the entire state in his administration, in practice (implementation, again), that promise has not been kept. Very few appointments to Commissions and Boards outside the front range (or outside the Democratic party) have been made. For those of us in the sticks, it’s government as usual, where the state seems to end at the Denver metro city limits.
As usual, I agree with you Car 31.
but had conflicting plans. I like what Newt has to say, what solutions did he present?
He proposed a process by which solutions are solicited from the public at large and from the thousands of state and local public officials.
One of the themes of his presentation is that our political system is broken because it’s driven by politicians who force feed us their solutions and policies. So, Newt’s not wanting to offer up his “solution” but wants to solicit ideas from the public.
From what I understood, efforts are underway to launch a solutions-wiki similar to Wikipedia where entries are posted by and edited by the public. In that way, what’s important or broken is identified by the public and the public can weigh in on how those issues should be addressed rather than have politicians define the agenda. Pretty novel concept, huh?
In concept it’s similar to how many classic (e.g., Demming) quality programs work in the private sector — factory workers and others are generally invited to identity problems and propose solutions.
It’s also similar to Newt’s Contract with America in the sense that it’s focused on producing solutions that yield results rather a political process that emphasizes vague campaign promises (“Here’s what I stand for”) and negative campaigning (“Here’s why my opponent is a dirty toad”).
Building a wiki (and I’m a complete technological dunderhead, so take this with a giant grain of salt) is similar to a blog, except that the posters collaborate on a wiki entry rather than just post a string of comments. There’s an emerging industry and software devoted to building wikis.
Mediawiki is the software that drives Wikipedia. Their site has several links to other wiki development sites.
http://www.mediawiki…