Tuesday Open Thread

39
  by: Colorado Pols Tue November 27, 2012 at 4:38 PM MDT

“Every noble work is at first impossible.”

–Thomas Carlyle


Full story: Tuesday Open Thread

39 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Gray in Mountains says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 6:45 AM MDT

    they say that they do. But, whenever President Obama talks about goals, needs, etc he gets attacked for “forcing stuff down throats”. Perhaps a more meaningful and more productive means of leadership these days is to, “from behind”, hear the clamor for immigration reform and act on that. Etc

  2. AndrewBateman says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 6:53 AM MDT

    Now the the Dems are back in charge in Colorado, the first order of business will be cleaning house and padding the back-burner bills that have been on hold for the last two years, which should happen quickly.

    But after that is done with, what do you all expect will be the big fights this year? I expect the implementation of the marijuana initiative will be the most publicized in the media because of its ground-breaking nature, but are there any issues likely cause trouble in Democratic paradise a la SB191?

    Its still early, but a lot of people here have their ear to the ground, and may have an idea or two about what is to come this Spring.

  3. Diogenesdemar says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 8:37 AM MDT

    Why? . . .

    Because I said so? . . .

    (I think I remember that used to work a dozen or so years ago with at least one of my kids . . . once . . . maybe . . .)

    First, Warren Buffett:

    A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11…

    SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.”

    Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.

    . . .

    In the meantime, maybe you’ll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won’t go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds. Send him my way. Let me unburden him.

    Next, Paul Krugman:

    Fighting Fiscal Phantoms

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11…

    Given these realities, the deficit-scold movement has lost some of its clout. That movement, by the way, is a hydra-headed beast, comprising many organizations that turn out, on inspection, to be financed and run by more or less the same people; dig down into many of these groups’ back stories and you will, in particular, find Peter Peterson, the private-equity billionaire, playing a key role.

    But the deficit scolds aren’t giving up. Now yet another organization, Fix the Debt, is campaigning for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, even while making lower tax rates a “core principle.” That last part makes no sense in terms of the group’s ostensible mission, but makes perfect sense if you look at the array of big corporations, from Goldman Sachs to the UnitedHealth Group, that are involved in the effort and would benefit from tax cuts. Hey, sacrifice is for the little people.

    And, then,

    When ‘Super PACs’ Become Lobbyists

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11…

    Americans for Prosperity, the so-called social welfare group founded with the support of David and Charles Koch, spent at least $36 million this cycle in a largely fruitless attempt to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans. Now it is joining with other conservative groups to lobby Congress not to raise taxes in the current negotiations over the “fiscal cliff.” The group is also demanding there be no reduction or delay in the budget sequester, the widely loathed measure that, in January, will begin cutting $1 trillion in spending over a decade.

    It will be joined in that effort by the Club for Growth, which spent $19 million to elect Republicans; by Americans for Tax Reform, led by Grover Norquist, which spent almost $16 million; and by the American Crossroads groups, founded by Karl Rove, which spent $175 million. None of the candidates Crossroads supported won their races, but, nonetheless, the groups are planning a new lobbying and advertising effort on the fiscal cliff, as well as energy and health care issues, according to Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper.

    . . . .

    OK, you don’t like to read so much, maybe?  Let me summarize:

    1.  Even the rich agree, the rich should pay more.

    2.  The “fiscal cliff” is a manufactured sham — I wonder why we always get these Mayan-Y2K-next-end-of-our-world-events coinciding with the end of our calendar year?

    3.  Real campaign finance reform is the key — now needed more than ever post Citizens United.  Elected officials may listen to the results from the electorate, but money almost never does.  

    On this last point, try to find and listen to  the NPR segment from yesterday, when they interviewed a psychologist who, in the 1970′s, sent out about 600 Christmas cards randomly to complete strangers he picked out of the phone book.  The results?  He received Christmas cards back from nearly a third of the strangers; and, some continued to send him Christmas cards each year for as long as up to fifteen years.  Why? — the universal human “rule of reciprocation.”

    Then wonder to yourself, if it’s really true when politicians say they’re not influenced by the massive campaign donations from big donors.

    . . . .

    Lastly, after you’ve finished your reading, enjoy a fresh brewed cup of coffee, go outside and take a walk, and forget about money for the rest of the day.  Why?  Because life is way more than just about money . . . and, because I said so, dammit.

     

  4. dwyer says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM MDT

    Here is the email:

    Obama for America info@barackobama.com

    It did not direct me to a webpage, it had a link in the email. When I clicked on the email, it took me to a web site with the questionnaire…but the second page asked for the ID stuff.

  5. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 11:05 AM MDT

    COLORADO’S ENERGY RANKINGS

    According to 2012 data from the federal Energy Information Administration:

    Colorado ranks 7th in the nation in overall energy production:

    9th in crude oil production

    5th in natural gas production

    11th in coal production

    -Denver Business Journal, 11.23.12

    Colorado is a fossil (finite) fuel bonanza…for those who don’t care about poisoning our air and water.

    It is also a renewable (infinite) fuel bonanza…for those who do care about keeping our air and water pure and safe to breathe and drink.

    Do we really want to continue to support and promote the future of a dying industry? To support the status quo insofar as the current setback regs is beyond a joke.

    Setbacks of at least 2,000 ft. would be a good starting point. A “ring of safety” is imperative around wellsites, and local hydrology must drive a rigorous testing regime. Anything less is caving to the industry.

    Are you listening , Governor?

  6. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 7:31 AM MDT

    You have the combination of the revenue limits straight-jacket in the constitution vs. education, healthcare, and pension costs growing at an exponential rate.

  7. The realistThe realist says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 7:51 AM MDT

    The corporations are winning this one so far, but the people in many communities are saying, “whoa, fella.”  It will be interesting to see if the Governor’s pro-industry positions soften as he moves toward a run for re-election, and will also be interesting to see if the legislature weighs in.

  8. Phoenix RisingPhoenix Rising says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM MDT

    It hasn’t gone away unless I missed something, and it could wind up taking a lot of time if appeals leave the district court judgement largely intact.  (And, frankly, I think they should – our state constitution is supposed to guarantee our children a decent education…)

    The only way to fix it is by amendment, and thanks to our single-subject amendment limits, it might take several interlocking amendments to cover all of the tax changes that would cascade out of whatever funding shift would result.

  9. parsingreality says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 7:35 AM MDT

    The average person in the mid-thirties was much more in tune with “respecting” authority.  From the authority doled out by the dominant religions, to that of police and public officials, people were in tune to follow a leader.

    FDR did not have to deal with forty years of conservative bullshit lies via the media.  Yes, certain newspapers were Republican, certain was leaned to labor and the Dems, but the average voter wasn’t barraged with lies in the guise of objectivity.

    The First Republican Great Depression pretty much sorted out the average guy/guyette from the uber wealthy.  And since there were more of them, they voted Dem.  Change was not a campaign slogan, it was a burning need.  As bad as The Second Republican Great Depression was, it still was as black and white as the first.  And by then, Fox and friends had succeeded in convincing many Americans to vote against their own best interest.

    I’m not sure what “leading from behind” is. Actually, I think the time is ripe for him to be bold.  ”Go ahead Pubs, run us off the cliff.”  Geez, other than the ideologues, who gives a crap if the one percenters pay a bit more in taxes?  You go, ‘Bama!

    Obama got a Reagan mandate in both the popular and electoral votes.  Use it.

  10. VanDammerVanDammer says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 7:49 AM MDT

    that term and type of phrasing comes from one side of the partisan divide. Don’t go down the Dwyer hole.

  11. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 8:42 AM MDT

    let him “soften” his positions. He will toe the line or they will shit on him like they do on anyone who crosses them. Fairness..compassion for others..accountability..respect for the rights of others…none of these are functional in O&G industry politics.

    As we speak, the oil and gas industry leaders are working overtime to undermine the communities trying to protect their air and water from being poisoned. Governor Frackenlooper is their willing toady and will do as he is instructed.

    Make no mistake about who is running the first floor of the Capitol building. The same group who “occupied” the Governors’ floor during the Owens’ administration are back, working hard to gut any regulations from the COGCC. They are trying to cut a “deal” with the Enviro community to escape fighting with a legislature full of Democrats. Their DINO governor will have to veto a lot of bills if they can’t pull off these bullshit negotiations.

    Anyone who believes a “promise” made by the O&G industry is a fool.

  12. dwyer says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM MDT

    I have a question.  I got an email from OFA asking me if I would answer a questionnaire about the operations of OFA during the election…..welllllll.  

    I, of course, was flattered. But when I went to answer, first I was asked for my age, my birth year…so far ok…and then my birth month and day….not so good.

    That kind of information is the kind of crap with seniors   are warned against given because of the danger of ID fraud….a real problem in our community.  So I have two questions, for anyone with OFA.

    1) Is this a legitimate query or is it a “phish?”

    2) How to contact OFA to ask this question and/or to give my opinion?

  13. AristotleAristotle says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM MDT

    can I ask you to post the email address that shows as the one that sent that email?

    And, did it direct you to a website, or is it asking you to reply by email?

  14. VanDammerVanDammer says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 2:25 PM MDT

    our birth year, month, and date

    last four of your SSN

    name of your first pet

    your mother’s maiden name

    city you were born

    and a checking acct number so I can wire your inheritance

    you can query a URL at whois.net

    Helps you trace back a site to see if it’s a bit legit.  Unless you know some expats beware domains ending in:  .cr, .ne, .ro, .ru, .ua

  15. dwyer says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 9:06 AM MDT

    My reply is at the end of this thread.  I clicked the wrong button.

  16. AristotleAristotle says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 9:16 AM MDT

    I presume that the domain name of the web page is also barackobama.com?

    If it is… then I would trust that they’re going to use that information responsibly and are not “phishing.” And I would trust them because they would have one hell of a lot to lose if they have anything less than the full intent of safeguarding that information and using it only for legitimate purposes. My guess is that they want it for statistical analysis.

    That said, you’re right to be wary, as that is how phishing scams work. (They’ll also ask for your SSN, which is much more crucial to draining your bank account, and other info like your mother’s maiden name.) And if you don’t want to share it, then you shouldn’t.

    Now… if the link directed you to a page with a different domain name, that would be a bit alarming (especially it’s just numbers, or ends in something other than .com or .org). I would try to find the contact info at barackobama.com, forward the email to that address with a “WTF” kind of query.

  17. MADCO says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 9:56 AM MDT

    Even if the site intends to use it responsibly – where’s the harm in them have an idea how old you are without having personally identifying detail?

    ps

    In the survey it asks what worked best for the campaign: voter reg and GOTV.

    I read somewhere that turnout was higher in Colorado 2012.  IN fact, the state with the highest increase in turnout.  (Though it would be hard for MN or OR to increase much)

    This is how you win Blue in Colorado for the forseeable future.

    Now, you want to win Red: keep the wimmin and childrens home.

    Green – almost no one votes.

    ACP: you;d have to amend the COnstitution.

  18. dwyer says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 10:23 AM MDT

    Although it did thank me for my passionate work with OFA….which ought to be a clue to somebody!

    This was the URL:

    https://my.barackobama.com/

    Thanks for all the information.  This webpage did not have a Contact Us button.  I will keep trying to contact the OFA people directly.  I am sure they will be “delighted.”

    Again, thanks.

  19. MADCO says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM MDT

    that now that the ratchet was out, it was just the caps that had to go. But that the “ask the voters” (direct democracy crap) was good.

    I thought that was false then- it’s false now.

    I would be fine with the D majority doing the overdue civil rights laws (marriage and immigration stuff) first and then blowing the majorities by eliminating TABOR.

    It strikes as a damn near perfect metaphor for the insanity of democracy that one party has staked out the position that gov’t and elected officials suck, and then run for and win office to prove it and they have the high ground on the how to govern debate.

    Direct democracy is stupid.  The founders knew it  (see Article 4, Section 4) and we do too.  TABOR’s “straitjacket” is the death of the Constitutionally guaranteed  ”republican form of government”

    Have a convention, send up several amendments all at once.  Lead, dammit!  But make the legislature legislate.  Make them do the job we pay them so little to do.

  20. Albert J. Nock says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM MDT

    Hi MADCO,

    The 17th amendment created direct democracy of Senators. Without the 17th, Obama would never have become Senator. If Obama never became Senator he would have never became President. MADCO maybe you are correct, direct Democracy does suck…

    Seriously though, the Constitution does not define Republic. Republic simply means the people control guberment, not a king or aristocracy or dictator or tyrant.

    Regardless of form, you want politics to have a narrow window. So for example, whether it is legislator or direct democracy, there should never be a law that imprisons all people with red hair. The scope of politics must be limited.

  21. sxp151 says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM MDT

    but he flounced a month or two before the election. Don’t remember his name now.

  22. AristotleAristotle says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 10:47 AM MDT

    One last thing, before you contact them… Check out the form to see if all of the information they ask is “required.” Usually there will be a little red asterisk by it, while other fields will not have that. If you’re not sure, you can test it by giving the info that you don’t mind sharing, leaving the DOB fields (along with anything else you don’t want to share) and then submitting. If the DOB is required, it will stop you from proceeding until you go back and fill out that field.

  23. AristotleAristotle says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM MDT

    Direct democracy is when the people enact laws and policy through votes. Whether Senators are directly elected or not, they’re still the ones voting on bills, not the people.

    I know you were just trying to be funny, but it’s only funny if it’s true. Knowutimean?

  24. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM MDT

    What is the point of this recently apparent penchant for referring to our nation as a republic? I keep hearing that word more and more coming from your media team.

    Does calling our nation a republic give you a greater sense of ownership than calling it a democracy?

    Just curious.

  25. Phoenix RisingPhoenix Rising says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM MDT

    Obama could (and likely would) still have been appointed by the Democratically controlled Illinois legislature.

    And I would argue the opposite – while you want the effect of laws to be narrowly tailored, you want them to be broadly written. I don’t want red headed murderers to be punished; I want all murderers to be punished.  (On a similar note, I want corporations who kill people to suffer the same level of punishment as an individual – X years “in prison”, i.e. under government supervision, with all profits going toward restitution or government coffers.)

  26. VoyageurVoyageur says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM MDT

    particularly rancid kinds of lunchmeat!

  27. MADCO says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 9:11 PM MDT

    ” Constitution does not define Republic.”

    Article 4, Section4 says “republican.”

    And it is defined.

    You want limitations because …you want whatever you think that means.

    But I swore an oath to defend the Constitution – not you nor your …whims.

  28. Phoenix RisingPhoenix Rising says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 11:58 AM MDT

    At least declaring that it’s a republic (hence, Republican) and not a democracy (hence, not Democratic) gives them more of a sense of legitimacy. It’s what they’ve got, throw ‘em a bone.

    Besides, he’s right and on days of the week when people on the conservative and libertarian sides of the aisle aren’t clamoring about word choice, they’d be complaining about the fact that we’re not a democracy. It’s kind of fun to watch – don’t spoil it.

  30. VanDammerVanDammer says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM MDT

    and clocks in with almost as many words and it’s about currency (oh gawd, you’ve turned?)

  31. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 2:38 PM MDT

    It’s just so pathetic.

  32. Diogenesdemar says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 3:03 PM MDT

    for a “Moncrief” . .  .

    Oh well, . . . more caps next time maybe?

  33. AristotleAristotle says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM MDT

    Yeah, I’d be wary of giving it out, no matter who they are.

  35. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 8:33 PM MDT

    Too many paragraph breaks, and it was relevant to what most of us are interested in.

  36. Diogenesdemar says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 6:14 PM MDT

    MCCAIN NOW ???????????

    ABOUT 15 YEARS PAST HIS EXPIRATION DATE, IMHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (Hmmmmm . . . . dunno’?, . . .  maybe needs more bold, too, don’t you think?)

  37. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM MDT

    Lots of unused caps, exclamation marks and bolds piled up at the bottom of my screen. But you can’t have any of my extra swear words. I’m running a bit low on those.  

  38. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 9:30 PM MDT

    I think its budgetary implications were so unimaginably huge that everybody just gasped, changed the subject and hoped it would go away. But it won’t.

    And not just because of the constitutional requirement. We know educational opportunity is terribly skewed between counties of wealth and counties of poverty. We know a lot of our kids are getting screwed every school day of every school year because their schooling is underfunded. (Yes, there are other reasons in some districts around the state, but underfunding is the overriding impediment in a majority of our districts.) But we say (Did I italicize that for emphasis? Oh, good.) we say we want all our Colorado kids to have a good education.

    Will we fund it? And how? I haven’t heard a thing about this since the judgement was handed down. Glad you brought it up, Phoenix. If anyone else here has any insight on any movement on this, please weigh in.  

  39. Phoenix RisingPhoenix Rising says:
    Tue November 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM MDT

    The only way to fund it would be via a massive tax increase at the state level (obviously an amendment needed), hopefully accompanied by a mechanism by which school districts (by themselves or by state-level directive) would reduce their own tax intake by the amount they’d receive from the state.

    Of course, most school taxes are property taxes, which adds complications on a Constitutional level. It’s a mess, and it’s going to be a mess to untangle. Let’s hope that no-one decides it would be easier to change the educational requirement instead.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.