Results tagged “Colorado” from Ultimate Politics

This Friday's New York Times investigation: "Payback Time: Exotic Deals Put Denver Schools Deeper in Debt" casts a laser focus on Michael Bennet's investment into a 'risky' derivative swap by as Superintendent of Denver Public Schools. Pasts attempts by the Bennet campaign to deflect questions about this investigation are now laid bare and there are guilty parties involved. Now, Colorado Democratic Representative Mark Ferrandino, Chair of the State Budget committee is calling for a bi-partisan audit by both the Colorado State House and Senate of this investment that has already cost Denver Public Schools 25 million dollars and counting. Listen here on local Progressive Talk show host Mario Solis-Marich's Friday show at about 1/3rd through the podcast. http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KKZN-AM/mario%208-6-10%204pm.mp3 Representative Ferrandino is exactly the person to call for this investigation. In addition to his position on the Joint Budget Committee, he has served as a budget analyst for the Clinton and Bush Administrations - specifically working on the interest rate for the National Debt. Rep. Ferrandino:

We are going to ask members of both parties and both chambers to do an audit of the investment because this has bigger implications than just DPS (Denver Public Schools), because of the recent merger of DPS and PERA (Colorado's Public Employees Retirement Association, because if (the investment) was done wrong, this could have an impact not just on Denver, not just the kids in Denver, but the State as a whole.

One possible solution Rep. Ferrandino suggests is that Superintendent Boasberg should negotiate with JP Morgan to forgive the 81 million penalty fee for withdrawing from the investment - although that seems somewhat unlikely. And the story goes deeper than just this report. Aaron Harber, a local PBS affiliate reporter has just condemned the one sided nature of the coverage by the Denver Post, who has endorsed Senator Bennet. From PBS' Aaron Harber

There also is no question the state's most influential media entity, The Denver Post , not only has endorsed Bennet but has been hammering Romanoff unmercifully. The Post slammed Romanoff for appearing to waiver on his commitment to not take Political Action Committee money due to a statement by his campaign manager and then hit Romanoff even harder for his inappropriate use of the word "looting" when describing some of Bennet's business transactions, it had to hurt Romanoff. Simultaneously, it almost totally ignored Bennet's totally unfounded claims and television advertising attacks on Romanoff for allegedly supporting the privatization of Social Security (when, in fact, he actually opposed it). If Romanoff loses, it will demonstrate, in part, the power of The Post. If he wins, it will be one more success for Romanoff against a dominant establishment entity.

At the time of this story, and despite the overwhelming evidence from other news sources, the Denver Post's editorial board have only written "Jury still out on risky DPS loan" In league with the Denver Post is the local blog, Colorado Pols, which had initially criticized Governor Ritter's pick of the unelected and unknown Michael Bennet and of Michael Bennet himself: http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8821

(Bennet) demonstrated an almost total lack of charisma. And this is exactly why we thought Gov. Bill Ritter's selection of Bennet for U.S. Senate was such a disaster... And these are Democrats. Active Democrats. If they don't know who Bennet is, and if he doesn't have the natural charisma to carry a small room, then how is he going to win a statewide election in 2010?

But after initially praising Andrew Romanoff's entry into the race for one month - Colorado Pols turned on Andrew Romanoff and have negatively attacked the Romanoff campaign - even the board members calling for an investigation. (draw your own conclusions about why an objective site suddenly became partisan for Bennet) I wrote about this in "Colorado Pols caught spinning for Bennet"

Andrew Romanoff should win Tuesday and then will win the General with ease. If however, Michael Bennet wins Tuesday, he better win in November as well. Because if he doesn't win in November, then this site will be squarely to blame for helping at every turn to defeat a stronger candidate in Andrew Romanoff.

Colorado Pols generally supports democrats, so I am surprised by their railroading of Andrew Romanoff. But the bigger question remains - Is this a coordinated cover up or were they hoodwinked by Michael Bennet? Back to the story: Although the problems with the risky loan was relayed numerous times by 3 of the 7 school board members, those members were attacked by Senator Bennet's campaign, the Denver Post,by Colorado Pols, by the DPS school board President Theresa Pena, who is also Michael Bennet's campaign treasurer, and by the current Superintendent Thomas Boasberg - who is also the lifelong friend and political ally of Michael Bennet. These conflicts of interest do not end there:

JP Morgan Chase, the bank behind the DPS deal, has contributed to the Bennet campaign. According to information made available through the money-tracking Sunlight Foundation, Chase has donated $3,000 to the Bennet campaign. An innovative Sunlight Foundation tool called "Poligraft," for example, also turns up the fact that Level 3 Communications has aggregated $19,550 to the Bennet campaign, which means contributions to the campaign have come from the organization's employees, their family members, and the Level 3 political action committee. Thomas Boasberg, now head of DPS and Chief Operating Officer at the time of the controversial Chase deal, was a mergers and acquisitions executive at Level 3. According to the New York Times, it was Boasberg and Bennet who spearheaded the DPS-Chase deal, leveraging their financial experience to sway the DPS board.

Now JP Morgan is funding Bennet's campaign, and Boasberg has been blocking any investigation. This is what he said about the board member's claim in March of 2010.

"This attack is a regrettable action by a few disgruntled board members who are seeking to create a political controversy where no controversy exists," said Superintendent Tom Boasberg.

I'd imagine you'd say that, not only to protect Senator Bennet, but yourself as well. And with the School Board President Theresa Pena also serving as Bennet's campaign treasurer, dissenters on the School Board have been silenced by procedure. But the campaign can no longer deny these people's claims now that it is being covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and Markos of Daily Kos.

This "exotic deal", akin to a variable interest rate mortgage, has now cost the Denver school system $25 million more than originally planned, and getting out of the deal would cost the district another $81 million in termination fees. But no one could've predicted! (That's really Bennet's defense.)

The Denver Post routinely is conservative - even endorsing McCain over Obama. It is quite likely that the Denver Post will sit on this story until Tuesday's primary is over, and should Michael Bennet win, suddenly become interested in covering the derivative swap. (the Denver Post has an editorial that is now attacking Bennet) With an ongoing bi-partisan audit of this swap looming ahead, the Republican General Election candidate will have a hammer to wield against Michael Bennet. (the leading candidate being Ken Buck - who does not believe in abortion even in the case of incest and rape) Ken Buck as Senator will be a disaster for Colorado. Even worse, Colorado is one of the swing states that could decide the balance of power in the Senate. And the Republicans will most certainly take advantage of this issue and defeat Michael Bennet in the General. For the sake of holding on this seat for Democratic party, Democrats must call on Michael Bennet to step down from the primary. Supporting Andrew Romanoff is not just about liking or disliking a candidate, it's about the Democrats best chance to retain this Senate Seat.

From the Romanoff Campaign:

Andrew Romanoff vs. Michael Bennet on LGBT issues and legislation:
Andrew Romanoff Supports full, federal marriage equality
But Michael Bennet Believes it's a states' rights issue and does consider it a constitutional protection.
Andrew Romanoff Would co-sponsor Military Readiness Enhancement Act (would effectively repeal "don't ask, don't tell")
But Michael Bennet has not co-sponsored the Military Readiness Enhancement Act.
House LGBT-related Legislation in the 111th Congress ANDREW ROMANOFF WILL CO-SPONSOR EACH OF THESE PIECES OF LEGISLATION. OF THE LISTED LEGISLATION BELOW, MICHAEL BENNET HAS ONLY CO-SPONSORED HR-3017 ("ENDA").

H.R. 1551, The Responsible Education about Life Act 
Lead Sponsor: Barbara Lee (D-CA)
H.R. 2262, the Safe Schools Improvement Act
Lead Sponsor: Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act
Lead Sponsor: Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
Lead Sponsor: John Conyers (D-MI)
H.R. 2625, Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act 
Lead Sponsor: Jim McDermott (D-WA)
H.R. 1024, Uniting American Families Act
Lead Sponsor: Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
H.R. 3017, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Lead Sponsor: Barney Frank (D-MA)
H.R. 2517, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act
Lead Sponsor: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
H.R. 1616, the Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2009
Lead Sponsor: Eliot Engel (D-NY)
H.R. 2709, the Reuniting Families Act
Lead Sponsor: Mike Honda (D-CA)
H.R. 3001, the Ending LGBT Health Disparities Act
Lead Sponsor: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
H.R. 2744, Equal Rights for Health Care Act Title 42
Lead Sponsor: Laura Richardson (D-CA)
H.R. the Student Non-Discrimination Act
Lead Sponsor: Jared Polis (D-CO)
H.R. 4376, the Freedom from Discrimination in Credit Act of 2009
Lead Sponsor: Steve Israel (D-NY)
H.R. 3827, the Every Child Deserves a Family Act 
Lead Sponsor: Pete Stark (D-CA)

Square State covers all things political in Colorado, the 'Square State' http://www.squarestate.net/

This week on Huffington Post's Denver page, Michael Bennet posted an article - Close the Revolving Door, which talks about his efforts to reform the Lobbyist ways of Washington. It would seem the readers from Colorado did not take comfort in the Senator's words in light of his recent votes. I have a friendly tip for Senator Bennet's staff, next time your Candidate writes an article, remember to turn off the "Comments" section of his article - which Huffington Post allows diarists to do. The resulting comments in response to Bennet's post can only be summed up as 'devastating' for a candidate trailing his Republican opponents and facing a grassroots backed primary challenge from Andrew Romanoff. Shall we take a peak at why the respondents are so angry? (Crossposted at Square State and Huffington Post)

Senator Bennet: Speaking as one of your constituents, I must say that it is my philosophy that actions speak louder than words (more honestly as well). As others have pointed out in previous letters on this article, your name is conspicuous by being listed as one of those that voted against the Kaufman-Brown SAFE amendment. Would you care to explain your actions? It will determine what actions I will take in November.

.

Appointed never-been-elected Senator Bennet, I would also like to know why you voted no on the cramdown legislation. Will you continue to vote in favor of the banks and against tax payers? Why don't you stop taking contributions from the banks after all banking reform legislation is before you and it would be the right thing to do?

Talk about revolving door. Bennet just voted against downsizing the biggest banks. This guy is one of the greatest recipients of money from financial institutions. How corrupt can you get. He is on his way out come November. Good riddance to this corrupt senator from CO.

"Yeah, I agree with you, Senator Bennet!! The close of "the revolving door" should begin by voting you out in November. With this piece, are you trying to cover up your tracks----voting against the American people and for the banks?? If that's the reason of penning this piece, then I think you haven't succeeded. I used to like you as a senator, but yesterday's vote scuttle it all when I wasn't able to find your name among the "yeahs" to that amendment. I guess it's time for Coloradans to try Romanoff out by sending him to Washington in your place."

and the hits just keep coming... So what specifically did Bennet do that was so wrong? from a press release from the Romanoff campaign:

The battle between Main Street and Wall Street has emerged as a key dividing line in the Colorado Senate race: • Twice, Sen. Bennet voted against a full audit of the Federal Reserve. This morning, Sen. Bennet voted no on the Vitter Amendment (S. Amdt. 3760 to S. Amdt. 3739 to SB 3217) that would require a full audit of the FED. He did the same in April of last year. (S. Amdt. 875 to S.Con.Res.13) Andrew would have voted to fully audit the Federal Reserve. • On May 6th, 2010, Sen. Bennet voted against an amendment that would have imposed leverage and liability limits on bank holding companies and financial companies, to prevent them from becoming too big to fail. (S. Amdt. 3733 to S. Amdt. 3739 to SB 3217) Andrew supported this proposal. • On April 30th, 2009, Sen. Bennet voted against legislation that would have prevented mortgage foreclosures and preserved home values (S. Amdt. 1014 to SB 896). Andrew supported this proposal. Sen. Bennet's no vote was a victory for Wall Street and an insult to families across the country who are struggling to stay in their homes during this weak economic time.

Yikes. This is where raising the 5th highest amount of campaign money from Wall Street changes from being an advantage to a liability. It seems Mr. Bennet's votes certainly have a way of favoring those who have given him the most money. The real question though is why? Bennet had to have known that these votes were going to be fodder for either his primary or general opponent - so why do it? That's the real rub - he HAD to vote these terrible votes because of who is really representing - Wall Street and the banks. They have their Senator, but we have our opportunity to be heard in the Primary. For those who like Senator Bennet and can overlook his votes, consider the fact that in polling done vs his Republican rivals, he trails them by a larger margin than his Primary candidate, Andrew Romanoff. Most importantly, Bennet's poll of positive view vs. negative view is 45 positive vs 45 negative - which is worse than any other candidate running - while Andrew Romanoff's numbers of 46 positive to 34 negative and is better than all three Republicans in the field. If you need anything to know, it's that keeping Bennet past the Primary is the most certainly the best way to turn a Senate seat over to the Republicans - most likely a Tea Party candidate . For me, I agree that it is time to support someone who has pledge to take no Corporate PAC money - Andrew Romanoff. Stop by his fundraising page and toss him a buck or two.

It's simple really, to hold on to a Senate seat, don't start out a re-election campaign without the support of base democratic voters. But here in Colorado, Senator Michael Bennet is starting out his re-election bid with that strategy. In addition to that some lifelong Democrats are saying

"they will vote Republican before they will vote for Michael Bennet"

Denver Teachers told me that was the sentiment among Denver Public School teachers about incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet. (See video) That statement should give any democrat reason for pause, considering the Democrats need to hold on to every vulnerable Senate seat in what looks to be an anti-incumbent election year - and 'Colorado is in the Toss up category' - with Republicans seeking to take back the Senate. Senator Bennet was appointed Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, and a few years later was appointed to the Senate to replace Senator Salazar. However, the Teachers who worked under Michael Bennet's tenure as the Denver Public Schools Superintendent have some choice words about his re-election efforts to the Senate. (yikes!) Crossposted at Huffington Post and Square State

MS. BARBARA BENNETT: I was actually on the committee of teachers that participated in interviewing Michael Bennet, and at that time during his interviews he was committed to staying as superintendent in Denver Public Schools for five years. As we know, he did not stay five years. And when he began his career as superintendent in Denver, he really did make the effort to go out and start talking to teachers, something that was sort of unheard of. And I have to say that I noticed over the years that that dwindled significantly as soon as he started getting pushback from teachers; he didn't spend the time talking to teachers as much as he had when he first started. And I kind of feel like he used the superintendent's job to create a name for himself as a stepping stone to move on into politics, and that's exactly what happened. So, that's how I perceive Michael Bennet.

I included this quote because it comes from someone who was monitoring Mr. Bennet's term at the helm of Denver Public Schools from before day 1 through the time that he left, and who had given him the benefit of the doubt about his tenure. Even then, she noticed he became less and less approachable as his decisions as Superintendent became less and less popular. Next, Mr. Bennet's veracity on his policies and agenda as Superintendent. Mr. Bennet negotiated the removal of a popular pay system known as Pro-Comp which rewards career track teachers. After this was done, he stated to the press that the Denver teachers had just received the biggest pay raise in Colorado history - but it turns out it was only a raise in terms of retirement benefits.

(question) (ME) As Superintendent, Michael Bennet stated on camera that Denver Teachers had just received a pay raise - was it a raise? MS.UNDERWOOD-VERDEAL "Technically that is one way to talk about compensation, but that is certainly not the way we live, because I won't be able to use my retirement to go the grocery store now. It was not a raise teachers realized on their paychecks." So it was not true? "No, it was not true, in the practical sense."

This half-truth espoused by Superintendent Bennet was reviled by many school teachers, and Ms. Underwood-Verdeal was not the first teacher to talked to me about this issue. Lastly, while Superintendent Mr. Bennet recommended the Denver Public School board to invest 700 million dollars of the Retirement account into a 'sound investment strategy' - which they did, because after all, Mr. Bennet was appointed to the Superintendent position because of his finance and management expertise. It now turns out that the investment strategy for the retirement funds was none other than a banking derivative swap just like the kind that bankrupted Greece and several municipalities around the country.

MS.MELISSA UNDERWOOD-VERDEAL:"As we find out more about this (investment) we are finding out it was risky. The fact we lost millions of dollars is clear, and teachers are starting to worry about their retirement."

What do all of these decisions by Mr. Bennet as Superintendent add up to? Consider Michael Bennet's re-election bid to the Senate:

(ME): "Let's ask a hypothetical question, if Andrew Romanoff loses to Bennet, to Michael Bennet in the primary, what do you think of that? What have you heard?" MS.UNDERWOOD-VERDEAL"I have heard from many people that they will not vote in that race" MS.BENNETT"I have heard lifelong democrats, teachers, in Denver, say they will not vote for Michael Bennet, that they will vote Republican, before they will vote for Michael Bennet."

Why the opinions of these teachers are crucial to retaining this Senate seat for Democrats: Colorado's population is basically 1/3rd Democrat, 1/3rd Independent, and 1/3rd Republican. Democrat candidates in state wide contests usually win by this strategy: First the candidate must take up a centrist platform in the General election which appeals to at least half of the Independents and also might peel away a Republican vote or two. And secondly, the candidate must absolutely sew up every single Democratic vote of the base voters and energize the Democrats who are not consistent voters. Now consider this: Senator Bennet is starting his Re-election bid with the ire of the State's largest School system with 4,555 current teachers. Denver is a democratic stronghold, and many of these teachers are active in the Democratic party, and as you can see above, are not afraid to share their opinion with someone they just met with a camera. That means they are sharing their opinions with other teachers in the Colorado Education Association. That means they are sharing their opinions with their spouses and relatives. Think about this, 4,555 teachers in Denver, the state's largest city, with the most democratic votes, seem to judge Senator Bennet in three categories: 1)lukewarm in supporting Bennet's candidacy 2)will not vote in the Senate race 3)or are willing to switch their vote from Democrat to Republican, even as a lifelong democrat. In addition to this, the banking derivative swap that Bennet persuaded the DPS school board to invest in was a very poor decision. It is disappointing to the teachers, but in this election cycle, any association to Wall Street or banks or lost money in bad investments go over like a lead balloon. In addition with that poor decision, Senator Bennet was one of the few Democrats that stood up for Banks to oppose cramdown, which would have allowed millions of people to re-negotiate their mortgages. And you can certainly guarantee that whoever the Republican challenger is, that vote and those banking derivative investment decisions will be repeated in every attack ad, thus weakening Bennet's chances among independents. (and even though this will not be a big General election issue, in light of the recent Oil Spill and especially the deadly coal mine disasters, as an environmentalist, it is hard to get behind a person who joined with fellow conservadems to support millions in tax subsidies for natural gas as well as for coal, which is not surprising since Bennet was at the top of the list for receiving funds from Utility companies) No matter your opinion of Senator Bennet, it is clear that to allow Michael Bennet out of his primary will be giving the Republicans an easier path to victory this fall. And looking at the Tea-party loving candidates the Republican are putting up, it behooves the Democratic party to put up the best candidate for the general election. Democrats in Colorado and across the nation, need a tested political candidate who has actually run for office and won an election, something Bennet has never done. The moderator in the most recent debate summed up my sentiments about Senator Bennet's chances considering how he is running his re-election campaign. (At 14:41 in this video of the debate)

MODERATOR: "Despite your significant fundraising advantage, your performances in caucuses and county assemblies has been underwhelming. By all evidence, you have been out-organized. In fact, it appears, you, a sitting U.S. Senator, are pursuing a back-up plan to gather signatures in order to just qualify for the August 10, primary ballot. Given your lackluster performance so far, please outline why you would be the strongest democratic candidate to run against a tough Republican candidate this fall?"

Bennet's primary opponent, Andrew Romanoff, is a viable alternative who can win the general. Andrew Romanoff polls better vs the Republican challengers, has the support of the majority of the base as evidenced by consecutive caucus victories and perhaps most importantly has been part of the leadership in the Democratic party and has campaigned on statewide legislation. It is time to listen to our teachers and to common sense. Support Andrew Romanoff's primary challenge in order to send the strongest candidate into the General Election and to retain this Senate seat from Colorado.

Headlines today tell of Wall Street bailouts and banking abuses that have resulted in our usurious credit card hikes, heartless foreclosures, and the bankruptcy of Greece's entire economy. It seems that no person or institution is safe from corrupt banking practices. While we might naively think that these practices are limited to Wall Street and large banking institutions, it has become clear that these practices have robbed our communities as well. Big banks, along with politicians, have lured states and communities across the US to buy into banking derivatives or 'swaps' and all are paying the price. And in each of these cases, well heeled politicians were paving the way for the banks at the people's expense. Let's look at a few example, and find out why Bill Richardson had to withdraw his name for Commerce Secretary, and why Colorado Senator Michael Bennet has a lot to explain. (hattip to JeffcoBlue) (Crossposted at Square State) To explain the derivatives that bankrupted Greece, and threaten to rob the pension of Colorado School Teachers, let's look at this article from the New York Times:

Across our very own country, municipalities, school districts, sewer systems and other tax-exempt debt issuers are ensnared in the derivatives mess. Like the credit default swaps that hid Greece's obligations, the instruments weighing on our municipalities were brought to us by the creative minds of Wall Street. The rocket scientists crafting the products got backup from swap advisers, a group of conflicted promoters who consulted municipalities and other issuers. Both of these camps peddled swaps as a way for tax-exempt debt issuers to reduce their financing costs. Now, however, the promised benefits of these swaps have mutated into enormous, and sometimes smothering, expenses. Making matters worse, issuers who want out of the arrangements -- swap contracts typically run for 30 years -- must pay up in order to escape. That's right. Issuers are essentially paying twice for flawed deals that bestowed great riches on the bankers and advisers who sold them. Taxpayers should be outraged, but to be angry you have to be informed -- and few taxpayers may even know that the complicated arrangements exist.

So the Bankers have preying upon municipalities who needed financial solutions in a down economy, only to find out they had been duped. But who was advising the municipalities? Our elected officials: New Mexico: (hattip Colleen Heild and Mike Gallagher)

They were touted as a state-of-the-art financing tool that would help New Mexico stretch its highway improvement dollars. Nearly five years later, state officials are trying to keep the $420 million in fancy financing from turning sour. In the last six months, one of the banks involved in the so-called interest rate swaps has gone bankrupt and the state has had to post about $16 million in collateral because the value of the investments dropped. That's in addition to major political fallout. The swaps and how a California company was selected to handle them are at the center of a federal grand jury investigation that derailed Gov. Bill Richardson's nomination as commerce secretary.

It seems that many state municipalities engaged in swaps that are now causing a lot of anger among tax payers:

Eight California municipalities, including Los Angeles, Fresno and San Diego County, filed civil class-action, or group lawsuits. The suits, most of which were consolidated with others in U.S. District Court in New York City, allege that banks colluded by deliberately losing bids in exchange for winning one in the future, providing so-called courtesy bids, secretly compensating losing bidders and allowing banks to see other bids. Brokers participated in the collusion by facilitating communication among banks and sharing in illegal profits, the civil class-action suits allege.

And what is the cost of extracting your state from the swap?

New York State provides a good example. An Oct. 30, 2009, filing describing its swaps shows that for the most recent fiscal year, April 2008 to March 2009, the state paid $103 million to terminate roughly $2 billion worth of swaps -- more than a quarter of which resulted from the Lehman bankruptcy in September 2008.

On a local level here in Colorado, the circle grows tighter, as Colorado's own State Senator, Chris Romer, was at that time the person lobbying for New Mexico to engage in these Swaps.

NMFA records show that among those lobbying for the swaps was a lead banker for JP Morgan, Chris Romer. His company ended up among the five banks that entered into swap agreements with the state.

And the ties to Colorado don't stop there - Senate appointee - Colorado's Michael Bennet was formerly at the head of Denver Public Schools. He was at the helm when the decision was made to invest the Teacher's pension fund into a derivative 'swap' deal. Now, 2 years, Denver Public Schools is paying about 3 million per month in losses on this swap.

DPS (Denver Public Schools) entered into negotiations with JP Morgan and CitiGroup, agreeing to issue fixed-rate bonds secured by DPS school buildings and other properties. DPS then began discussion to enter into an interest-rate swap agreement with JP Morgan, Bank of America and the Royal Bank of Canada. We believe that following ensued: DPS entered into a swap transaction, believing that interest rates would stay high. As recent financial news tells us, interest rates fell. We are concerned that this may have translated to a loss of taxpayer dollars.

I wonder if the local SEIU chapter will stand by it's endorsement of the newly appointed Senator - Michael Bennet, who happens to have raised the 5th highest amount of campaign cash from Wall street banks and was responsible for putting our Teacher's pension in a 'swap' when SEIU international is now calling for a sweeping investigation of these 'swaps'. In the face of the worst economy since the depression, we don't need gambling on derivatives with taxpayer money at the expense of teacher's pension. Join SEIU's call for an investigation ,to get some kind of justice. As for me, I will support Bennet's primary challenger.

The North Carolina Coastal Resource Commission just finished the first study of sea level rise in the United States. The most significant part of the study was what the report said about what the market has decided about sea level rise.

...even if the public and governments drag their feet on reacting to a changing coast, others aren't waiting to adapt. State Farm, for example, announced this week that it will no longer write or renew insurance policies for structures on barrier islands to reduce its exposure in areas prone to catastrophic events like hurricanes.

Crossposted at Square State Here is the real point of this story - that insurance companies, which are based on the so-called 'invisible hand of the free market' have seen the writing on the wall and are no longer in the business of insuring new homes on the Outer Banks in my home state of NC. This is the lesson I want deniers who are in positions of power in our government to hear - the market is denying your denial. Capitalism is recognizing something you refuse to do, based mostly either on your ignorance or perhaps on your close ties to fossil fuel industry lobbyists. And when you protest with your bully pulpit, average people become misinformed and impede the ability for our leaders and governments to take action or achieve meaningful goals (hint:Copenhagen), even as science shows us that the earth is continually heating, and that this past decade was the warmest on record. In the UK a similar study was recently completed http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/asia/091203/australia-environment-sinking-continent?page=0,1

The report suggests private property owners "withdraw, relocate or abandon assets that are high risk." Residents on the east coast of the United Kingdom, in Norfolk, are also feeling the sting of abandonment from local and national governments in some coastal areas, which have been deemed too costly to protect. More than 15 million people live near the U.K. coastline, but Britain's Environment Agency has already said that the area known as the Norfolk Broads will probably be left to be reclaimed by the sea.

And their government is starting to plan a course of action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8460089.stm

About 10 million people in England and Wales live in flood risk areas. The project, launched on Friday, is a joint venture between the Institution of Civil Engineers (Ice) and the Royal Institute of British Architects (Riba). The report, Facing up to Rising Sea Levels, urges the government, planning authorities and the public, to act sooner rather than later. "If we act now, we can adapt in such a way that will prevent mass disruption and allow coastal communities to continue to prosper," said Riba president Ruth Reed. "But the key word is 'now'," she added. The study warns that rising sea levels, an increase in the frequency of storms and sinking landmasses could leave many UK coastal areas vulnerable to extreme flooding.

Industrialized countries are planning their defense of coastal areas and acknowledge that this endeavor will be costly. Other countries in less prosperous economies,however, are struggling with facing this economic reality. Here is one report on the changing coastline of Africa http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH4PD20091218

The United Nations estimates Africa has 320 coastal cities and about 56 million people living in "low lying" coastal zones, those less than 10 meters above mean sea level. Some expects say sea levels have risen by about 20 cm since the start of the Industrial Revolution in northern Europe. That is no surprise to residents of Abidjan's Port Bouet, where abandoned concrete shacks litter the beach. Some have lost their front walls. Scaffolding is all that remains of others. "Twenty years ago the sea was far away from here," said Samassa Awa, 39, an unemployed nurse whose wooden shack has been flooded by the Atlantic many times. "You see all these destroyed houses? Many people fled but we decided to stay." ............. "We want the authorities of the world powers to come and rescue the poor people from the sea," said Diakite Abdullaye, 46, looking over his shoulder at the ruins of a house he said had already been destroyed by the advancing ocean. "If they can't stop the sea rising, then help us move somewhere else," said the resident of Ivory Coast's biggest city.

as well as here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm

Mozambique has been identified as one of the countries likely to be affected most by climate change, and the issue will not go away. Much of what Mozambique would like to do is deemed too expensive While scientists cannot give an exact figure of how much the sea has already risen in Mozambique, the effects are already obvious. "I went to the beach a lot as a child, and I've noticed things are changing," said 34-year-old Jose, who lives in Maputo. "The water is eating the land - little by little it's eating the land." Mozambique has compiled an action plan, and has been offered help from the World Bank, UN agencies and a plethora of other aid agencies. But so far little has been done, and much of what the country would like to do is beyond its budget. "I think people are still at the stage of 'Oh my God - what are we going to do?'" as environmentalist Antonia Reina puts it.

And while too much water is an issue for Coastal inhabitants, not enough water is the other issue for many other people who rely on glacial melt for fresh drinking water - such as in Bolivia, where Scientists recorded the first glacier to 'disappear' from existence this past year. Or in news closer to home, The Winter Olympics in Vancouver are having to use trucks to bring in Ice and Snow for their downhill skiing competition because it has been too mild for snowfall.

Winter Games officials have given up on any help from Mother Nature and will now be trucking in snow for the freestyle skiing and snowboarding events at Cypress Mountain, on Vancouver's North Shore.... Mild temperatures and heavy rains earlier this month forced officials to close the mountain ahead of schedule, as snow gave way to mud.

I find it to be the ultimate irony, that at the gathering of the world's countries to compete for Winter Sports, the phrase "giving up on Mother Nature" is being used. How much of Mother Nature's failure will we have to see before we realize what's going on? It seems clear from reading these reports, that action to address these crises needs to start sooner rather than later. However, the United States is home to some of the leading stalwarts of climate change denial and are increasing the severity of the problem. In my other home state of Colorado - Rep. Dave Schulteis has proudly proclaimed why he has decided to vote against Martha Rudolph's appointment to the Executive Director of the Department of Public Health and Environment: http://senatorschultheis.blogspot.com/2010/01/sen-schultheis-votes-no-on-gov.html (hattip sufimarie)

1) Is there an issue with global warming...and is it caused by humans? Her answer to both related questions was an unqualified "yes." 2) Does she consider CO2 to be a pollutant? Her answer: It is a contributor to Global Warming, although it does not fit easily into the federal Clean Water Act... ...Based on her answers to the committee, I voted NO and will debate these issues on the full floor of the Senate when this comes to the full Senate for confirmation

I included this local story, because it seems in every state across this nation, there is a vocal global warming denier making news. And with the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns, the strength of the global fossil fuel lobbying campaign to impede meaningful legislation on Climate Change just got a whole lot tougher. I take comfort in this video made by Peter Sinclair who debunks climate denial myths. The point of this video indicates that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report discloses that it does not take into account "Rapid Dynamical Change in Ice Flow" - an event where glacial instability tips out of control and melts uncontrollably. This is what scientists are now coming to grips with, that the glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica are destabilizing at an exponential rate. We have had a period of "Rapid Dynamic Change in Ice Flow". The last time we had such an event was 14,000 years ago (12,000 BCE) when Ice sheets suddenly destabilized - this was called the 'Meltwater Pulse 1-A' and in a rapid period of time sea levels rose 75 feet to their current level - which some scientists have speculated could have been caused by an impact from space, but the verdict is still out. (Perhaps not too coincidentally, this is the same date of the massive die off of species in the Western Hemisphere such as the American Horse, Giant Sloth, Sabre Tooth Cat, Dire Wolf, and perhaps most famously, the Great Mastodon - one instance where I believe man has been wrongly blamed for the extinction of species of animals) This event of worldwide sea level rise, I believe, is most likely the common event that is recorded worldwide both in oral and written tradition as the "Great Flood." We are approaching another epic event, and it is now on the horizon, begging us to mitigate it's affects. I have been frustrated by the lack of response by governments to address the threat to the millions of people that are already being displaced on low lying islands and who have no legal status as 'Environmental Refugees' - and even started a petition to remedy this issue of legal limbo. For their sakes, when our legislators realize that their beach houses are going to be threatened, or their ski slopes will be bare, then they will start thinking about the true human cost of their denial of the truth. The inaction of these legislators on Climate Change may not be shameful to them, but in the future their children and their grandchildren certainly will discover they have been denied an honorable namesake.

(crossposted on Daily Kos)
Here in Colorado, we just had our annual Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson dinner. The speaker was former Clinton Aide, and CNN commentator, Paul Begala.
There were two things about this dinner that surprised me.
The first was the ability of Paul Begala as a speaker, (his closing topic about his Grandmother's visit to the White House brought down the house)
and second, was the level of support for Andrew Romanoff for a Senate Primary run in 2010...

First of all, I was pleasantly surprised by Paul Begala. The man can give a speech. He is one those rare democrats that can weave his beliefs and religion into his speech without coming across as preachy. Thank you Mr. Begala.

Secondly, our first official testing of the waters was quite successful. At the Colorado Convention Center, the annual JJ Dinner was larger than it has ever been, and our numbers of elected officials was larger than it has ever been.
As we handed our volunteers their clipboards with sign up sheets and stickers that said "Friends of Andrew Romanoff", I was a little skeptical about how willing people would be to show their support. It takes nerve for volunteers to circulate petitions for a primary at a formal function.
However, my volunteers were running out of stickers and out of sign up sheets and were turning people away by the time dinner started.

Senior Citizens don't come up to you and grab your arm and tell you "tell him we are behind him" for nothing.

And, even more so, elected officials in the State House and Senate have a lot to risk by signing our sheets to support Andrew Romanoff in a primary, yet they still did so.
And this dinner was not a freebie. Tickets were over $100, and the people there are part of the fundraising base.
Barack Obama has proven that when the people are behind you, they can outraise the millionaires and make their voices heard.

Thanks to Ray, Lori, Alex, Faren, Julia and to Sarah for your hard work last night. (sorry I did not print up more stickers and sign up sheets!!!)

Mr. Romanoff, if you are reading this, the support for you is real, the people are behind you.

As you might have read, after hearing people's opinions in the community on Ritter's pass on Romanoff (not to mention Perlmutter, Hickenlooper, J.Salazar, and DeGette) for Senate, I started a facebook group for Andrew Romanoff for Senate for 2010.
Since doing this,  several people have spoken to me to let me know that there is growing support for Andrew Romanoff for a Senate primary for 2010.

So, we are starting a "Andrew Romanoff for Senate 2010" table at the Jefferson Jackson dinner on March 7th.
If you knew the people I knew who were wanting this to go forward (and there a more than a few of you) I'd bet you'd be interersted in supporting his candidacy.

Event:

Celebrating Real Change: 2009 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner  
The 76th Annual Jefferson Jackson Dinner will be held on Saturday, March 7, 2009 at the Korbel Ballroom in the Colorado Convention Center at 700 14th Street, Denver, CO 80202.  

Registration and silent auction begins at 5:30 p.m.  
VIP reception is at 6:00 p.m.
Dinner and program run from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m

Cost is $125 per ticket.
email me at ultimatepolitics@hotmail.com to arrange the ticket purchase,

and join the group here. 

I just started my new job travelling the state to help abused and neglected children. While visiting a small rural town in Colorado (Lamar) I decided to go to the Prowers county dems meeting. It was a very good meeting,but something unexpected happened.
I suddenly got the 'preacher' over supporting Andrew Romanoff in a primary for Senate in 2010.At this meeting of die-hard rural dems, someone mentioned getting more young people involved in Democratic politics.
Neat idea, I thought, so I suggested getting a Young Dems chapter started. (more on that soon)
Next, another person mentioned getting a guest speaker to speak to a new Young Dems group, then names of elected officials started.
Then "it" happened.
I could not fathom having appointed (and yes, that should be a dirty word) Senator Michael Bennett speaking on being a public servant politically, after his appointment over several other people, most notably, Andrew Romanoff. How could he speak on his service to Colorado and why being involved in community,politics and government, is so important when you imagine the comparison. Romanoff - worked hard, got elected, served 8 years, several as House Speaker, only to be passed over for 2 different statewide posts for someone who has lived in Colorado for less time than I have? (9 years for me)
It made no sense.
So I let loose on supporting Romanoff, openly, for a primary.
And the strangest thing happened - people liked the idea and were more behind it than I could have imagined.
So here we are, me writing this, and you reading and deciding now, will you, fellow dem Coloradoan, tread the safe ground and stick with Gov. Ritter's appointment, who by any objective measures, is more vulnerable to Republican opponents than Romanoff, or will you take a stand now to support the candidate who can win, and more importantly, has proven he can serve his constituents and will represent our needs, concerns, and interests in the U.S. Senate
We Support Romanoff for Senate 2010 

In this article, I wrote about how the Secretary of State of Colorado, Mike Coffman is engaging in activities that would make it easy to steal Colorado's votes, and the national election, for McCain.
Now, in the state that has been compared to 2004's Ohio, Coffman is throwing out thousands of new voter registration forms through a minor technicality.
While this may anger you in a general way, it angers me personally even more. You see, while working on a voter registration drive to get Obama elected,my team and even me personally have registered numerous voters, and have heard from many voters, especially in our African American communities "this will be my first time voting", and to know now that they are going to be turned away at the polls, along with all of the other people registered by Rock the Vote, ACORN, the Obama Campaign and the Democratic party, makes me sick to my stomach.
Read more for the background on this story and Coffman's outrageous ruling to disenfranchise voters.

In what I previously covered:

1. Colorado, according to Stu Rothenberg's  What's the Top Electoral College State This Year?, Colorado is now THE swing state as Florida and Ohio were in 2000 and 2004.

2. Secretary of State Mike Coffman broke the law last year by allowing his database manager Dan Kopelman to manage the database while he was running a Republican voter database company on the side. See story by Dan Whipple

3. Coffman's State Elections Director was discovered to be staying at a loft owned by the software salesman who manages the Voting Machines for our state, machines that have already been de-certified, then re-certified by Coffman. She resigned pending an investigation, and it calls into question the veracity of our voting machine process.

4. Now, Coffman has ruled on new voter registrations and decided this:

(from Colorado Pols' Dan Willis)

At Issue: Forms used by Voter Registration Drives. They include a place for people to include their Driver's License Number, State ID Card Number or Social Security Number (only requires last 4 digits). There is a box present which states "I do not have a Colorado Driver's license or Dept. of Revenue identification number" which people are supposed to mark if they are going to only give an SSN.
The Secretary of State has included in his Rules (dated July 2008) that any new voter who does not mark that box and only gives their SSN shall not be registered to vote.  In mid-September he issued a memo to the County Clerks telling them specifically to not register anyone who does this.
Consequence: Thousands of new voters are attempting to register to vote, thinking they are successful because they signed up through some organization such as ACORN or any of the political parties, but are not registered and will not be allowed to vote if they do not correct their forms.

When I say thousands, I am not over-exaggerating. In Denver County alone (the only one I have numbers for so far) this ruling has resulting in approx. 3000 denied voter registrations! And that is just one county, and one with thousands of more forms to even look at!

The SoS's sorry excuse? They claim to upholding the law, specifically CRS 1-2-204(f.5) which states:
"In the case of an elector who has been issued a current and valid Colorado driver's license, the elector's Colorado driver's license number. If, instead of a driver's license, the elector has been issued a current and valid identification card by the department of revenue in accordance with part 3 of article 2 of title 42, C.R.S., the elector shall provide the number of the identification card. If the elector has not been issued a current and valid Colorado driver's license or identification card, the elector shall answer that he or she does not have a driver's license or identification card and shall provide the last four digits of the elector's social security number. If the elector does not have a social security number, the elector shall answer that he or she does not have a social security number."

I have looked at our copies of Voter Registrations. Thousands of them. And the majority of these people who think they are registered to vote are going to be disenfranchised by this devious, deceptive, and underhanded ruling.
This may cost us the state for Obama, maybe even the entire general election.

(Here is the interview with Colorado Ethic's Watch Chantel Taylor and Colorado Media Matter's Bill Menezes on these issues and the failure of the media to report these criminal activities.)

Please continue to forward this to any lawyers you know or contact the Secretary of State's office here,
or the Denver District Attorney's office.

Part 2: Local Energy Initiatives: This will cover some of the ways citizens have gotten involved in passing laws to change their options for energy use, effectively giving a level playing field fo renewable energy. Now, although this post seems to be Colorado focused, the fact is, in part due to the location of the National Renewable Energy lab in Golden,Colorado combined with an active progressive community, Colorado has been leading the nation in embracing renewable energy. Here to tell us more about this and the Clean Energy Progress Fund - an initiative to be voted on this fall in Colorado, is Professor Thomas McKinnon, a Chemical Engineer,who has worked both with the NREL and with the School of Mines and now heads up the drive to support the Clean Energy Progress Fund. Part 2: local energy initiatives

"we have cost effective solutions"

Question - Tell us, Professor McKinnon, what is the Clean Energy Progress Fund? A - The Clean Energy Progress Fund is a way to support Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency and promote carbon sequestration in agricultural soils and forests. It is a triple win, it will help us with our economy, with our energy security, and will strengthen our environment. We really need to have a more secure energy source and the Clean Energy Progress Fund will promote solar power, especially Concentrating Solar Power, which focuses the sun through mirrors on a trough, like the one in Las Vegas, which generates 64 megawatts. Through Concentrating Solar Power, we could easily generate all the electricity for Colorado, just in the San Luis Valley, and at a cost that is competitive with a coal powered plant. Many of the things we are proposing,the only way for them to happen is for the government to get involved. For Transmission lines and other upgrades, that is where the Clean Energy Progress Fund would provide money from the people. We are also helping to create community action. For instance in Boulder, (first city in the U.S. to pass a carbon tax in November 2004) we have communities that are getting together to talk about how to save energy and the environment. Because we can see changes in the environment, and there are dangers, increased droughts, wildfires, new problems like beetle infestations, and so on. Global warming is a global issue, so Colorado could eliminate our heat trapping emissions to zero and there would still be an issue, but collectively through this Clean Energy Progress Fund, Colorado can be a leader, passing the first of bill of this kind nationally.

People all around the country should get involved in this bill. Just like in 2006, when Colorado passed the first law of its kind, the first time in the Nation's history that a renewable energy portfolio standard was put directly before voters rather than processed through a state's legislature there are the naysayers that say we can't do things like this. In that campaign, the 'smart people' said it would be impossible to make Xcel energy and other large utilities to commit to making at least 3% of their energy portfolio renewable energy by 2007 and 10% by 2015. Not only were they wrong, but Xcel reached 6% by 2007, and now leads the country in renewable energy. That makes ripples, that will effect everyone, and will put pressure on the other Utilities to follow suit. Clean Energy Progress Fund will take Colorado and the Nation to the next step by raising 200 million through this fall's ballot, for renewable energy in Colorado, and as an example for the Nation. They need your help to change our future. Get involved. Go to www.cleanenergyprogress.org and get involved, contribute and help (and tell Professor Thomas McKinnon where you heard of them) because this issue, and global warming, can't wait.

n many states around the country, voters are becoming all too acquainted with slickly worded ballot initiatives that have appealing names that often hide the true nature of their intent. It turns out that there are several agencies with Right Wing agendas that are behind these bad laws being passed, including laws like the recent "Personhood" initiative that if approved, would most likely become the first challenge to Roe Vs. Wade. But not so fast - it turns out that one group, Protect Colorado's Future has gathered enough information to prompt Reverend Daniel Klawitter and Reed Norwood to file a lawsuit as citizens against the Secretary of State, Mike Coffman to address the validity of the approval of this petition's place on the fall ballot. (Coffman, incidentally is running for Tom Tancredo's vacated seat). Through their lawsuit, they list over 29 instances of fraudulent activity in collecting signatures for the Right to Work initiative. In just one of these 29 instances, over 53,000 signatures that were not valid. These agencies circulating the petition also have been busy in many other states with their measures, in states like Nebraska, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The Oklahoma Secretary of State has said this about one such group, the National Ballot Access -

there was "an unprecedented situation where large numbers of duplicate names and addresses were discovered well into the signature counting process"

These agencies, National Ballot Access, Kennedy Enterprises, and Lamm Consulting, are being funded here by none other than Johnathan Coors - of the Coors family. A victory in this lawsuit could potentially lead to other petitions filed by these groups, including the Personhood initiative, the Anti-Affirmative Action initiative that is circulating in other states such as Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Arizona, and many other extremist initiatives. Reporters have written already about how the GOP's hopes may well rely on these initiatives in the Fall election. You would think that in times with $4 per gallon gas, record mortgage foreclosures, and a recession, these conservative groups would hold off on trying to pass Right to Work laws, but they won't be satisfied until a new feudal society is created. Let's hope this lawsuit stops these groups from passing more of their deceptive laws in our states. A word from Martin Luther King Jr. on Right to Work

" In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as 'right to work'. It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights...It's purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions for everyone...Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote."

The Colorado Corporate Fraud initiative would hold corporate criminals accountable for the fraud that happens in their companies. This means that accomplices to criminal fraud can't play dumb any more. This initiative, which is on its way to the ballot in 2008, would make Colorado a leader in the nation in cracking down on corporate crime. The corporate fraud initiative, proposed by former Qwest employee Lew Ellingson, would make CEOs and company executives criminally liable if they broke the law or stood by as others committed crimes. This means that accomplices to criminal fraud -- like Qwest's -- can't play dumb any more. The initiative would also allow any Colorado resident to sue the executives under such circumstances, with proceeds from successful suits going back to the state. More from the NY Times:

(Courtesty of DAN FROSCH) Published: April 1, 2008 DENVER -- For 30 years, Lew Ellingson loved being a telephone man. But by the time Mr. Ellingson retired from Qwest last year at 52, he had grown angry. An insider trading scandal had damaged the company's reputation, and the life savings of former colleagues had evaporated in the face of Qwest's stock troubles.

That's right, Lew saw his friends and collegues lose their jobs while Nacchio made out like a bandit. But instead of throwing up his hands, he did something about it....

Now, Mr. Ellingson is the public face of a proposed ballot measure in Colorado that seeks to create what supporters hope will be the nation's toughest corporate fraud law. The measure would make business executives criminally responsible if their companies run afoul of the law. "If nothing else, these folks in charge of the corporations and companies will think twice about cutting corners to make themselves look more profitable than they really are," he said. The plight of Mr. Ellingson's former employer, Qwest, based in Denver, was a motivation for the proposal, said Jess Knox, executive director of Protect Colorado's Future.

That motivation was partially due to the miscarriage of justice, where it seems once again, money, power and privilege seems to take precendence over justice...

Last April, a jury in Denver convicted Qwest's former chief executive, Joseph P. Nacchio, of 19 of 42 counts of insider trading. Mr. Nacchio was sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $19 million and forfeit $52 million in money he earned from stock sales in 2001. In March, however, a federal appeals court panel reversed the conviction on the grounds that a judge had improperly excluded expert defense testimony.

Now, with a law like this on the books, CEO's will no longer think of Ken Lay or Joe Nacchio and think they will get away with their crimes - and employees can rest assured that if someone robs their pensions through the illegal stock sell offs, cooking the books or overstating earnings, they will have a way to legally hold the persons involved responsible. Makes sense, and it is about time. More from Lew Ellingson and Jess Knox on this important ballot that can level the playing field for the employees of America. To get involved with this initiative - contact ProtectCOfuture@gmail.com