Polis’ Progressive Stances; Salazar Progressive on a Lot Less

After I heard two national, supposedly progressive, media shows try to take Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO-02) to task over his vote and press releases about H.R. 3200 in committee; after receiving e-mails from various groups encouraging me to tell Rep. Polis to stand up for “true” health care reform (what the heck is that, exactly?!), after I’ve seen cheap shot after cheap shot from national bloggers, I decided to push back in my very small way.  While the vote may not be the most defendable from a progressive standpoint (I’m actually having some difficulty fully understanding what the issue really is), I think the situation has gotten completely blown out of proportion.  I think there are plenty of other folks who say they’re Democrats but who have a much longer and much less impressive voting record on final bills.  So I’m writing this to try to put things into better perspective.

Polis voted against the bill in the Education and Labor Committee.  Okay, I get that.  He wrote a letter to Speaker Pelosi and included it on his website.  So at least he’s being up front and honest about his reasoning and is trying to engage the rest of us.  That reason may chafe at some folks, but there’s something positive to be said for his actions.

In contrast, Rep. John Salazar (D-CO-03) voted against the climate bill (which I’ve argued is a much more critical issue than health care) on the House floor, the final vote until a House/Senate compromise bill is put back before everybody.  Not only did Rep. Salazar vote to condemn Americans (actually the entire world) to multiple feet of sea level raise, Dust Bowl-drought conditions from Kansas to California and more extreme weather events, not only all of that, but after his vote, he snuck out of the House chamber so he wouldn’t be confronted by his leadership to change his vote before the time to do so closed.  He voted against his Party’s bill and was too cowardly to face them afterward.  Billions of people will be negatively affected if people like Rep. Salazar has his way.  Now I ask you: which case is worse?

Gov. Ritter ran on a platform that included health care reform at the state level.  After a year’s worth of state-wide hearings, he kicked the can up to Congress, saying it was too big a problem for Colorado to address alone.  How many Colorado-centric or nationwide blogs took Ritter to task for going back on his promise?  How many progressive national media shows even mentioned this travesty?  Let’s look at it a little differently: How many Coloradans have lost health insurance or died due to lack of care because the issue got kicked to the curb by Ritter?  Crickets from the national progressive media.

As I’ve said before, Rep. Polis has engaged the netroots and greater progressive infrastructure to a far larger degree than Rep. Salazar or Gov. Ritter (who is constantly on right-wing extremist talk-shows and not progressive talk-shows, by the way).  How many solidly progressive pieces of legislation has Rep. Polis not only voted for in his short time in the House, but co-sponsored, including H.R. 676 (single-payer, not just a public option) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to name just two?

A lot of unfounded condemnation has centered around Rep. Polis “voting for the rich, people just like himself”.  Well, let’s examine another voting record from that standpoint, shall we?  Rep. Salazar: voted to extend the Bush tax cuts (in 2006), an awfully fiscally responsible vote, since the Bush tax cuts didn’t pay for themselves – talk about voting for the rich! and voted for tax breaks and incentives to oil and gas corporations (another fiscally responsible and pro-rich vote – look at Salazar rack them up!).  Where were the leading progressive blogs on those votes?  When did the progressive media shows call Rep. Salazar out?  Where were the issue groups’ condemnation of Rep. Salazar’s votes of bills that actually became law, which the health care bill hasn’t?  Oh – both those bills were the final House bills, not a committee bill that will soon be changed anyway.

On top of those two, Rep. Salazar voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act (2009) (Polis voted for it, by the way – no kudos were issued by the hateful mobs); voted for the FISA amendment which gave retroactive immunity to telecoms’ illegal wiretapping of Americans without warrants (2007); voted to continue funding the Iraq occupation with no withdrawal date (2007), (that’s awfully fiscally responsible too, isn’t it?!); voted for the Military Commissions Act (2006); voted against a withdrawal timetable from the Iraq occupation (2006); ; voted for the undocumented worker clampdown bill with no path toward attaining legal status (2005); voted against the endangered species protection bill (2005); ; and voted for a Constitutional amendment making flag burning illegal (2005).

Get a freaking grip on reality, folks.  At this point, it’s obvious that Polis’ critics have some mysterious bone to pick with him.  This kind of day-after-day-after-day attack style is indicative of an obsession with the subject.  Rep. Salazar is by no means hurting for money.  He may not be as rich as Polis happens to be, but Polis has demonstrated stronger progressive values to this point than Salazar has.  This is all pretty revolting.

Colorado Legislature & Health Care

Colorado Senate Democrats sent out an email a few days back patting themselves on the back for passing health care bills this year. I wanted to take this opportunity to put the following on the record: Democrats didn’t go nearly far enough on health care this year.

The 208 Commission was formed to solicit input from citizens. Regardless of the source, every story I heard about their public meetings contained some variant on: “Single-payer universal health care is the only solution we want.” I went to a few meetings, I’ve stayed in contact with other activists and people I’ve met. That message has not changed. Democrats have not offered any sort of universal health care plan. They have nibbled around the edges of the health care problem we all face. And that’s not good enough.

I’ve heard the Governor and the legislature basically want to wait until next year when a Democratic president and Democratic Congress is in place so universal health care can be introduced at the federal level.  Hmmm.  That sounds nice.  Except what happens if McSame gets elected?  How many more years do we get to wait?  Quite frankly, a Democratic-controlled Congress won’t guarantee universal health care.  They’ve proven themselves to be too scared of their own shadows to effectively do our business.

No, the Governor and Democratic Legislature in Colorado took the easy path this year.  Meanwhile, our accessibility to quality health care didn’t improve.  As progressive as I am, I will not help pat them on the back this year.

BLM Blows Roan Decision

The Bureau of Land Management on Thursday released its management plan for drilling on the Roan Plateau, home of a great deal of biodiversity as well as large amounts of oil and gas. Last year, Gov. Ritter proposed a number of environmental compromises to establish more responsible drilling plans on top of the Plateau. The BLM’s decision disregards the majority of those proposals.

“In December, Ritter sent recommendations to the Bureau of Land Management—a division of the Department of Interior—asking for areas considered the most environmentally sensitive under the bureau’s plan be expanded to 36,184 acres from 21,034 acres. [The] plan also suggested phasing in leases on top of the plateau rather than leasing the land all at once, effectively increasing the protected areas on the plateau.

But the federal government ignored most of Ritter’s suggestions, submitting a plan Thursday without significant changes from one issued last June.”

Weekend Random Stories

• NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory is running into technical problems and cost over-runs. Currently, it’s scheduled for a 2009 launch. I don’t think either issues is something to be worried about. Technical problems always crop up during a developmental phase. They’ll continue to appear during an operational phase. That’s why scientists and engineers are employed: to take care of things like a heat shield that needs to be redesigned. Added costs? They’re around $20 million, which isn’t much when the project was budgeted for $1.8 billion. Now, maybe those numbers are a little too high. But I think we’ll get considerably more out of that $1.8B than we do from spending a similar amount to occupy Iraq.
• A good story showed up in today’s Denver Post. Counter to the pro-fossil fuel stance, it turns out that once renewable energy companies are established, they have a tendency to attract similar busineses to an area. Vestas, the Danish turbine-maker, is going to open a plant near Windsor this week. Vestas is the world’s largest wind-energy manufacturer. As such, a number of firms that will serve as vendors to the Windsor plant are looking to establish locations near the Windsor plant. That means more good paying jobs in the region.

The article goes on to mention that the plant was supposed to employ 400 workers on four production lines. It turns out that that projection is wrong. Instead, 650 workers on six production lines will be needed due to growth in demand in the wind turbine market. Wait, wait, wait. Conservatives wail that renewable energy will hurt the economy and cause job losses. An extra 250 workers will earn an average of $37,000 per year than originally planned in an area of the state that could use some more good paying jobs. And that’s just the beginning. Research continues on turbine efficiency, requiring highly educated personnel who also command good salaries. If only the companies had CEOs pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars per year, the story would likely rank as a success in conservative circles.

The culprit behind all of this do-gooder news? Voters in 2004 who passed an alternative-energy mandate and then in 2006 elected Gov. Bill Ritter. Ritter actually has a plan for renewable energy development as part of a New Energy Economy. Pat each other on the backs if you were forward-looking enough to recognize the opportunities that are beginning to manifest themselves. If you didn’t like Amendment 37 or Ritter, please continue to howl about renewables into your obscurity.

• Disappearing ice in the Arctic has been attributed to global warming.  Now, Inupiat Eskimos are suing nine oil companies, 14 electric-power companies and one coal company to pay to move their village, which is under siege by waves of the frigid ocean, once blocked by Arctic ice.

If nothing else, the case should build a factual record.  Fossil fuel corporations have engaged in the largest disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry in the mid-1900′s.  Unfortunately, this won’t be the last suit.  Will the record be established in time to do something to save not only the Inupiat, but millions of others now at risk to rising sea levels?

Ritter’s Forest Health Council

I’ve written a little bit about the pine beetle kill problem facing Colorado and the region. Rep. Mark Udall’s (D,CO-02) bills (H.R. 5216 & H.R. 5218) haven’t been acted upon yet in the House. As has been demonstrated before, Gov. Bill Ritter has an honest interest in what happens in his state. With respect to the beetle problem, Ritter created a Forest Health Council last week.

From his press release:

“Many people have been working on this issue for years,” Gov. Ritter added. “The time has come for a unified, coordinated and aggressive action plan that enlists all stakeholders as collaborative partners in this fight. The time has come for state government to lead that effort. The Colorado Forest Health Advisory Council will bring together local, state, federal and private interests to identify and implement short-term actions and long-term forest health strategies.”

Kevin Lundberg Makes Anti-Science Comment

They never stop do they? I’m talking about fringe right-wingers’ constant attacks on anything to do with global warming. One of the easiest and most used attacks is the scientific underpinnings behind policy initiatives. Rep. Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud, H.D.49) said yesterday that the research underlying Gov. Bill Ritter’s Climate Action Plan is … flawed.

“We can’t lose sight of the fact that it’s predicated on junk science,” [he] said.

‘Lundberg said it has not been settled scientifically that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions contribute to global warming.’

Wrong. A key finding of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment was that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Another key conclusion was that most of the increase in world temperatures was due to the corresponding increase in human greenhouse gas concentrations. Thousands of scientists worldwide were involved in the research leading up to the latest IPCC report. The IPCC is made up of representatives sent by governments and organizations across the world.

But let’s entertain for one moment the fantasy that Lundberg is correct. What would that mean? That a global, intergovernmental conspiracy exists with the goal of fooling everyone else about what’s going on in our climate system. Is Rep. Lundberg a conspiracist? Or is he parroting talking points developed by the fossil fuel industry to forestall a change in our energy policy?

Maybe Rep. Lundberg has outstanding qualifications to be able to evaluate the integrity of the science underpinning Gov. Ritter’s plan. He holds a B.A. from Rockmont College (formerly the Denver Bible College) in history and social science. Wait, he has a Bachelor of Arts in history and social science? Not a B.S. or an M.S. or a Ph.D. in atmospheric science or climate science? What science classes has Rep. Lundberg completed? No, Rep. Lundberg is not qualified to objectively determine the validity of science involved in Gov. Ritter’s plan. He’s another fringe rightist looking for some attention and now he’s got some.

By the way, Lilias Jarding has said she’s running against Lundberg in this fall’s election. “When people do not have healthy food, a safe place to live, quality education and an adequate income, they cannot enjoy the blessings of liberty and their rights as Americans,” she said to a group last month. Sounds like a much better representative for H.D.49.

Judicial nominees and car registration

As Republicans realize their time in power is waning, they’re pushing hard to get their brand of judicial nominees onto benches. Wayne Allard has been one of the most unproductive Senators since … well, I don’t know when, but he hasn’t been busy working for Coloradans, that’s for sure. So it was with interest that I read there was some contention developing regarding appointing district judges. Allard wants to cement conservative activists to benches to serve for years to come. Ken Salazar wants to slow him down and appoint judges who might actually do their job: interpret law and not make it.

It seems Allard submitted some names back in November. Salazar formed a panel a couple of weeks ago to put together their own list of names and to provide information on those Allard submitted. Salazar’s method increases the transparency of the nomination process. Allard, as usual, operated outside of public discourse. Allard raised an important issue: background checks and the confirmation process takes months to complete. Further, the Senate won’t consider anyone after July 1. There are (or soon will be) three vacancies to fill.

Renewable energy in the news

There was a good write-up in Saturday’s Rocky Mountain News Business section about Colorado’s advantages and disadvantages in the developing renewable energy sector. Among the advantages: great location for solar, very good location for wind. It rightly recognizes Gov. Bill Ritter’s leadership on this issue by conveying his vision for possibilities in our state. More big positives: the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and all the research universities in the area (Mines, CSU, CU).

Instead of just blindly moving forward without taking into account potential stumbling blocks, the article also details some disadvantages Colorado faces: financial incentives that are unable to compete with Texas, Ohio, or Michigan and cheap labor. The labor part, as first mentioned in the article, fails to acknowledge the underlying issue: lack of qualified laborers. It does go into some detail on this later in the article. The article does go into detail about an advantage areas on the coasts enjoy: large collections of big cities. Denver isn’t all that big and there’s not any big cities within hundreds of miles of it. That’s puts us at a disadvantage compared to Southern California, the Carolinas, Portland to Seattle, or Texas.

Perhaps the biggest gear in this fairly nascent machine is the political will. I don’t think the article did this part justice. Without a populace demanding investment in research and infrastructure, Colorado wouldn’t be as far along the path we’re currently on.

One quick number to demonstrate what’s at stake: Spanish companies plan to spend between $7 and $10 billion in the U.S. during the next few years. That’s just one country. I would argue that Colorado sure could use part of that kind of investment, mostly because I imagine it would act as seed money. The renewable energy sector of our economy is poised for substantial long-term growth. Money spent and invested in developing technologies and bringing them to the market will only benefit us more as time goes on.

Can Colorado make itself look attractive enough for companies to bring their resources? This sector of the economy will be built, there’s no doubt about that. It would benefit the state if we can be nearer the top of that sector than the bottom. Thank goodness we have folks like Gov. Ritter and thousands of hard-working citizens who recognize this.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

More catching up

I saw a few headlines that I wanted to capture and make comments about.

The EPA has concluded that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the nation’s health. If upheld, this would require regulations to rein in emissions. I can hear Republicans’ heads swelling at the thought of government ‘intrusion’ into business decisions. Hey, if emissions are so good for us, why don’t we have ‘tailpipe bars’? It’s just what plants inhale, after all.

Colorado’s health care commission is set to report to the legislature. What’s at stake? Hundreds of thousands of uninsured and underinsured Colorado citizens. What did citizens overwhelmingly recommend to the commission? Single-payer care. What will we get? Well, nothing this year as even Gov. Ritter seems too scared to act on one of our most pressing issues. Which tells me the Governor and others are likely receiving signals that Democrats will win even more State House and Senate seats; at the least, they seem unlikely to lose enough to switch control back to the kids (Republicans). Ritter has said he’s hesitant to implement a plan while Democrats look likely to win back the White House. He doesn’t want to burden Washington with another state health care plan with no federal infrastructure. Um, Governor? Maybe 20 different plans will drive home the necessity of implementing a federal single-payer system. Let’s do what’s good for Coloradans and let the feds work their own issues out, huh?

Finally, the energy industry in Colorado is threatening to take their ball home and not let us play with them anymore. Cry babies, the lot of them. What’s got their diapers in a twist? “Colorado’s oil and gas industry is hopping mad about new energy development regulations being written by the state…” ‘”If the rules were approved as proposed, “We would be very, very disappointed,” Collins said. “I’d feel aggrieved that our industry was not taken into account.”’

That’s correct: all the mean Democrats never let the poor, abused extractive industry put in their opinion on what the rules should be. Here’s the real problem, ya’ whiners: Gov. Owens and the previous joke of a state legislature allowed, nay invited, your industry to walk all over the interests of the citizens of this state for eight years. My opinion wasn’t taken into account to any realistic degree prior to this.

But let me put this another way: take your freaking ball home and go drill in someone else’s state. My state would be better for it. The future does not lie in your direction and I know that irritates and scares the crap out of you, but the sooner you realize it, the better off we’ll all be.  Which reminds me, the Saturday Rocky Mountain News had a good article about renewable energy yesterday I want to write about.  Next post.

Framing 1/1/2008

Happy New Year! Last night was fun – I got together with a group of friends, had a nice dinner and partied just past midnight. I’m glad the wind has died down today, however. Days on end of it was starting to get irritating.

So here’s what’s on my mind: the way in which issues are discussed, or framing. For instance, this article at the Denver Post carries this headline: “Colorado’s use of terror grants blasted.” The story behind that headline? Gov. Owens’ (R) administration didn’t set up response systems according to Department of Homeland Security guidelines. Some funding wasn’t allocated properly, other funds were moved around to obstruct proper accounting and there was a lack of communication between a Hazard Committee and the former governor. You know, pretty common Republican methods of governance.

Here’s the kicker: at what point of the article did Owens’ administration come up as the party of interest? The 13th paragraph, within a segment of the article subtitled “State officials point to progress“. Which state officials are those: Owens’ officials or current Gov. Ritter’s officials? The latter, of course. It’s interesting that the cause of the problem is identified in the solutions part of the article, instead of the section where the background is laid out.

Now, what might this have to do with framing? What if the roles were reversed and Owens was cleaning up after Ritter? I know, that comes straight out of an alternate universe, but let’s go with that line of thought for a moment. How would the article have been written then? I’m not screaming conspiracy, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Ritter, being a Democrat, would have been identified earlier. In fact, I bet he would have been named in the headline. Something like “Ritter worked to undermine CO citizens’ safety” or something close to that. Because you know the corporate media loves to label, or frame, Democrats as weak on security issues. Because from the media view-point, Democrats aren’t masculine enough to even want to protect citizens. Despite mounds of evidence to the contrary.

Just a little more on this subject: “Owens rejected a bipartisan state Senate panel’s unanimous recommendation to unite homeland security efforts in one department. Owens said the senators showed a “pervasive lack of understanding” of the state’s homeland security efforts.”

Isn’t that interesting. Owens rejected a bipartisan state Senate panel’s unanimous recommendation. Because they showed a “pervasive lack of understanding”?! How incredible is that statement? Did Owens try to communicate the efforts he cited to that panel? We don’t know because the article fails to mention it. Or did Owens act like the father figure and ignore advice from the non-father figure? He knew better than everybody else how best to act, apparently. Except for the little problem of spending money he shouldn’t have and acting against policies that were set up at the federal level. Hmm, another example of a Republican supporting state’s initiative when it works for their interests.