Dominic Dezzutti's Blog

President Obama used a live interview with Katie Couric to announce his plans for a bi-partisan health care reform summit, openly inviting Republicans to participate in the process.

 

Some saw this as a move of weakness, possibly admitting defeat on health care. I don’t see it that way. I see this as a bold political move that makes Republicans try to figure out exactly how much “bi-partisanship” America really wants.

 

Bi-partisanship is a funny thing. Generally, voters seem to want it to happen, however, if they really wanted it, the ‘Productive’ Party would be in charge and the Republicans and Democrats would be the Libertarians and Green parties of our system. But as we know, that’s not the case.

 

But, back to the Health Care Summit. President Obama realizes that the GOP has been able sit back and watch his health care reform package suffer from plenty of disagreement within Obama’s own party. They really haven’t been forced to participate in the process, and since there are very few fans of the process, they have enjoyed that luxury.

 

But President Obama’s offer puts the ball firmly in their court. But like an Andy Roddick serve coming at them at 140mph, it’s a dangerous ball to have coming at you.

 

Here are your two scenarios.

 

The first scenario has the GOP take President Obama up on his offer and they decide to work with Democrats on Health Care reform. While many of their pet issues are ignored, they actually get a few bones thrown to them in the process. With just enough Republican ideas in the legislation, the watered down proposal passes.

 

Under this scenario, if voters really want bi-partisanship, the GOP looks like heroes and they have an even greater advantage going into November. However, to get that advantage, they sell their soul in the process via health care reform. If any of those angry voters were really angry at the idea of Health Care reform, and couldn’t care less about bi-partisanship, the GOP loses that angry momentum and more than likely, many November races.

 

The second scenario is the GOP continues to stall and refuses to offer any help or input. While being known as a party that sticks to their guns, some of them literally, they would also cement their reputation as the party of ‘no’. If they underestimated voters’ real desire to see bi-partisanship, or worse, real health care reform, they could see their early 2010 advantage disappear quickly.

 

Voters are funny. In 2008, you would have thought that voters wanted health care reform so bad that they would punish any party of the “no” for even thinking of standing in the way. Fast forward to 2010 and some voters around the country are making it look like they will punish the party of “Yes, we can”.

 

So, do voters want to see real bi-partisan health care reform or would they rather see no reform at all? That’s the $64,000 dollar question.

 

The good news is that neither you nor I have to answer that question. Thanks to President Obama, only the GOP needs to answer it now. The trick is, will they get it right?

The latest chapter of the medical marijuana saga in Colorado has inspired me to think of the very basis of our government and how we have chosen to run our society.

 

Don’t worry, I won’t get too deep, but bear with me.

 

Sensible Colorado, a non-profit made up of supporters of the medicinal marijuana dispensaries, announced Thursday that they plan to draft a ballot initiative with better regulation of the medical marijuana industry, just in case the legislature passes regulation they don’t prefer.

 

Basically, if the legislature passes a law they don’t like, they plan to get the voters of Colorado to help overrule them.

 

While that is perfectly legal, and seemingly the new way of governing in Colorado, it makes me wonder if all of us still prefer to live in a republic, versus a democracy.

 

Yes, if you recall your high school civics course, we indeed live in a republic, where we elect representatives to handle our government, instead of a democracy, where we all show up for every little decision. I’m simplifying, but I think you know what I mean.

 

So if medical marijuana advocates can simply write their own regulation and have it passed by the voters, why are we going through the hassle of having our elected representatives spend time on it at all? I realize that the voters still need to have their say, but it is realistic to think they can succeed.

 

While realistic, is it the best option?

 

Is it a good idea to let a well funded campaign of industry advocates, from any industry for that matter, be the ones to write laws that supersede ones passed by our own elected officials?

 

There is an argument to be made that industry advocates already write our laws within the legislature and congress, but that’s another blog.

 

I guess my point is that while imperfect; our elected officials are at least usually worried about their legacy and therefore, more often than not, looking at the big picture.

 

Going the purely democratic route, while appearing a bit fairer, doesn’t make sense in the long run. If it did, that’s the way our government would have evolved two centuries ago.

 

So, that brings us back to the big question. What’s the best way for Colorado to handle our laws? Should we hire professionals to handle it, or simply do it ourselves? Should we get behind more efforts to overrule our legislature?

 

I think if we’re honest, really honest, we’ll come to the same conclusion that most of us do when we walk around Home Depot.

 

Yes, doing a project yourself seems like it would save money, be faster, and overall get a better job done. But generally, do it yourself projects end up being more expensive, take twice as long to finish and end up looking like a job done by an amateur. 

 

The big difference is, when you apply this theory to the state constitution, you can’t hire the local handyman to clean up your mess. It’s a much more expensive money pit to fix.

 

Just in case you’re looking for proof, let me add this quick litmus test. If you are conservative, you probably do not like Amendment 23 and its effect on our state budget. If you are progressive, you likely think the Taxpayers Bill Of Rights is to blame for our current state budget mess. Both were products of do-it yourself governing.

 

So even both sides of the political spectrum can seemingly agree, sometimes it makes sense to call a professional.

With the primary campaign season beginning to warm up, there has been a lot of talk about fighting the D.C. “Insiders”, as if they were a hockey team, or better yet, an evil professional wrestling tag team.

 

And living and working in Washington D.C. is not stopping some from condemning this evil “Insider” threat, as if they have mysteriously not contracted this insidious disease that has struck everyone else around them.

 

In fact, even if someone is currently holding office, the hip type of person to be right now is an “Outsider”. An “Outsider” isn’t beholden to special interests. An “Outsider” is the kind of person who can clean up politics as usual. An “Outsider” is just like you and me.

 

But the thought that strikes me is this, if you are running for office, or already hold one, how are you not truly wanting to be an “Insider”?

 

And even though being an Outsider seems attractive, do many Outsiders get anything done?

 

Think about it. If Outsiders were able to actually change anything, they never would need to go to Washington D.C. in the first place.

 

When was the last time you heard anyone refer to an influential mover and shaker as an “Outsider”? When was the last time someone made a big time political deal by using all of their “outside” connections? Do you ever tell anyone, “Don’t worry, we’ll get treated right at this place, I know someone on the ‘outside’?” Exactly.

 

The only real “Outsiders” are people like you and me that actually live outside of Washington D.C.  Anyone who already works there, or who wants to work there, may disagree with the current people in power, but they are only interested in making decisions on the “inside”. And once inside, they all like to stay there.

 

Being an Outsider sounds good because at the heart of it, Outsiders are the ones that are being left out of the process. There’s a lot of camaraderie in being an Outsider. And if you don’t like any of the decisions being made right now, you certainly don’t like the “Insiders”.

 

But even though Insiders are easy to vilify, they are the ones running the show and the ones with the power. Outsiders may not like them, but to wield any power, they must become that which they despise, an Insider. 

 

A politician wanting to become a true “insider” without really admitting it isn’t a big surprise. What is a big surprise is that we as voters keep falling for the same line. It’s not like this is a new tact.

 

However, one of the key rules of advertising is if you find a line that works, ride it as long as it lasts. And even though this line has been ridden more than Seattle Slew, I don’t see it getting retired to the barn anytime soon.

Just when I thought the State of the Union was going to be the biggest event to happen in Washington D.C. last week, two days later, President Barack Obama accepted an invitation to speak and participate at the House GOP retreat.

 

I think the 90 minutes President Obama spent at the retreat did more to advance politics for both parties than any State of the Union address, or GOP response could have dreamed.

 

If you missed it, President Obama and House GOP members had an honest, pointed, yet civil discussion about almost everything you can think of.

 

It would be great to think that House Dems, and everyone in the Senate could have learned something from the event, but that is highly unlikely.

 

What we witnessed was something akin to Haley’s Comet, something truly special, and probably not to happen again in our lifetime.

 

The reason it is so rare and special is because it was that unique combination of a productive conversation about policy, which politically helped all participants. President Obama gave his fellow Democrats an amazing campaign tool by forcing the GOP to go on record with their ideas. The House GOP gave their own candidates a big push by publicly presenting the ideas that proved they were not simply the party of ‘No’.

 

It would be nice to think that this kind of productive conversation could be had more often in government, but that’s not going to happen either.

 

I think that is because as President, Barack Obama can take more risks and is given more respect from House GOP members. I can’t imagine they would extend that same respect to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, nor do I think she could afford to risk actually looking interested in being bi-partisan.

 

As with any political event, especially something like the retreat summit, people come away with different opinions of how it went and truly productive it was for everyone involved.

 

But while the details may vary, I honestly believe there was a serious upside for every participant. The race now is to see who can capitalize on that gain first and most effectively.

 

The person who has the most power to affect that outcome is Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She must walk a difficult line.

 

If she roadblocks House GOP members, she hands the advantage to the GOP who can say they have ideas, as evidenced at the retreat, but the House Dems have no interest in the bi-partisanship President Obama would like to see.

 

But, if she gives the GOP an actual voice, the Democratic base will howl, since they believe that their majorities have kowtowed to the GOP too much already. But even though the base will howl, giving the GOP a real seat at the table may prove to be very advantageous to House Dems.

 

If just some of the GOP supports a bipartisan effort, then the unified anger that the GOP is riding right now begins to break down. If they simply refuse to participate, then they solidify their party of the ‘no’reputation.

 

So as you can see, this very simple, very ‘politics as it should be’ retreat will very likely be the most significant political event from early 2010. Everybody has something to gain and something to lose.

 

Who will spin the gold first? We shall have to wait and see, but expect the spinning to start very soon.

At the risk of getting caught up in the minutiae of President Obama’s State of the Union address, I’d like to focus on one line of the speech.  With well over an hour of material to choose from, you may wonder why I’d adopt such a sharp focus. Allow me to explain.

 

First, the line, which ironically received some of the biggest laughs of the night, as if the President was trying out material before going on Letterman.

 

“I didn't choose to tackle this issue [health care] to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics." 

 

The President received big laughs from that line, and while I wasn’t there to verify this, I have to believe that many of those laughs were nervous laughter from Congressional Democrats.

 

If Obama is willing to say tackling Health Care isn’t good politics, what is he saying to all of those Congressional Democrats risking their political careers on the issue?

 

Isn’t he basically telling all of those Democrats in competitive districts that this issue is more important than their careers? Now don’t get me wrong, to some people, namely Senator Michael Bennet, Health Care reform is more important than their political careers. I can admire that dedication. However, like most of us, many of the politicians I know like to keep their jobs.

 

Even if Congressional Democrats don’t remember this exact quote from President Obama’s address, I still think they will want to know if they are expected to fall on their political swords to get this issue passed. And if so, who wants to volunteer for that kamikaze duty?

 

So, I guess Obama has put himself into a position where he either has to convince Congressional Dems that supporting health care reform is good politics, which by his own admission will be difficult, or come up with another idea.

 

I’m betting on the latter.

 

I think Obama will try to sell the Congressional Dems on Health Care by convincing them that their politically dangerous vote will be offset by a sound political vote on jobs and middle class tax cut issues. 

 

That might play in Peoria, but that’s some fancy political dancing, if you ask me.

 

Remember, the Dems that are worried about backing a political hot potato aren’t from safe districts. They’re from districts like our own Congressional District 4 in Northern Colorado. Those voters are conservative and if they don’t like a particular vote on Health Care, they may not overlook it, even if they liked a vote on tax cuts.

 

I think that is one of many reasons Rep. Betsy Markey has already voted against Health Care reform.

 

I think nervous Congressional Democrats are going to take President Obama at his word, the word he said in his speech, namely that supporting health care reform isn’t necessarily a sound political move.

 

They will need to decide what is more important, passing health care reform, or living another day to pass other kinds of reform.

 

Whatever they decide, they can at least thank President Obama for being honest, and for making them laugh.

 

President Barack Obama established himself as extraordinary speaker way back at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. That was his first, “most important speech of his life”. Since then, he’s had several “most important” speeches.

 

Whether it was his speech at the 2008 DNC or his Inaugural Address he has consistently been able to rise to the occasion.

 

His first few speeches were mainly trying to live up to the hype. The hype machine created an image that his speaking skills could rival Kennedy and Reagan. He has yet to carve himself into that Presidential Speaker Mt. Rushmore, but he was able to live up to the hype.

 

But now his speeches are less about hype and more about political survival. His last health care speech came as a response to an August break full of angry Town Hall meetings and House Democrats fearing for their political lives. That speech seemed to quell the August anger, but didn’t do much to pass a health care plan.

 

Now as President Obama prepares his State of the Union address, his base is in full mutiny, Republicans are suddenly invigorated by Scott Brown’s upset win, and the rest of his agenda hangs in the balance.

 

I expect Obama to respond well to the situation because he has the kind of mentality that responds well under pressure. But I do have to wonder how effective the speech can be under these circumstances.

 

A speech, even a good one, is only a speech. And frankly, as important as American voters are, that’s not the audience Obama needs to really impress. 

 

The audience that Obama needs to rally and inspire is Congressional Democrats who are on the verge of derailing Obama’s agenda with very little help from Republicans. 

 

President Obama needs to approach his State of the Union address as a Knute Rockne type of speech given to Congressional Democrats who are the Notre Dame football players needing some serious motivation after getting their tails handed to them in the first half.

 

Can Obama rally the troops and get them re-focused, or is their collective fear and different directions they are all being pulled in too much to overcome?

 

Frankly, I don’t know. I’ll never underestimate Obama’s speaking skills, but I’m also reticent to underestimate how fractured his own party is right now.

 

As an aside, can anyone remember the last time one political party controlled this much of government, with this large of a majority, and actually was the party acting scared? I’m not an historian, nor do I play one on TV, but I honestly can’t remember a time like this.

 

I guess if I have any advice before the President makes his long-awaited address, it might be this. Skip the briefings about the economy and health care and watch the speeches in Hoosiers, Rudy and Knute Rockne, All American as many times as possible. Trust me; those speeches are going to be far more useful to your audience than actual policy.

The reaction to last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that drastically changed campaign finance reform law has been very interesting to me.

 

The most entertaining reaction has been the people lamenting that this decision will now bring millions of dollars of special interest money into politics.

 

Honestly, is there actually anyone out there that thinks special interest money is currently absent in politics?

 

I also find it funny how quickly this turned into a Democrat vs. Republican fight, and less about actual campaign finance reform, because to me, both parties have plenty to gain or lose from this decision.

 

The Democrats that are lining up against this ruling obviously fear that corporations will only use their ads to support Republicans and demonize Democrats. And Republicans are licking their chops thinking the same thing.

 

However, last time I checked, big business was successful because they know how to play both sides of the political aisle. There are very few industries that simply want to be known as only Democratic or Republican.

 

Think about it, corporations do not want to look like they only support one party. If the XYZ Widget Corporation only supported one party, the other 50% of America would have a brand new reason not to buy their widgets.

 

Most businesses I know are smart enough to play both sides of the deal very wisely, like playing roulette and betting on black and red every time.

 

And just in case you think this is only benefitting big corporations, remember the rulings give labor unions those exact same rights.

 

When it comes to real campaign finance reform, I tend to side with the idea that all of the campaign laws in world won’t keep “big money” out of politics. Even before this ruling, 527 organizations have become the invisible dark hand of campaigns.

 

I think it comes down to one simple solution. If we insist on keeping that pesky First Amendment, we can’t limit anyone’s ability to talk about politics. Therefore, place no limits, but insist on complete and immediate transparency.

 

Oh, and not the kind of transparency candidates like to talk about but once elected forget how to deliver. I mean the kind of transparency that can actually happen by reporting it on-line.

 

Alas, I think we’re several more sweeping campaign finance reform laws away from that solution.

 

In the meantime, try not to be fooled by anyone who tells you this new ruling will only help one kind of politician. Because all kinds of politicians like campaign support, and all kinds will find ways to get it.

As the Scott Brown victory continues to send shockwaves across the country, he is enjoying a very special 15 minutes on the national stage. He is being hailed as a hero by the GOP and is the topic of conversation in virtually all of the halls of power. Very few freshman senators ever get this kind of attention, let alone the day after they are elected.

 

The attention paid to him will quickly fade because the focus in the Senate is now on what will be the new look of Health Care reform, and how a simpler plan can be passed.

 

The other reason the attention will fall away from Brown is because while he has vowed to fight the current form of Health Care, since that is now considered extinct, his ‘no’ vote is no longer needed.

 

Now, the attention will fall on the potential of a possible 60^th vote for a new plan.

 

I realize that many people think Health Care is dead and the whole game ends at this point. Well, I don’t see it that way.

 

I honestly believe this simply changes the game, but not as dramatically as some think.

 

The GOP in the U.S. Senate has presented a united front on the current Health Care proposal, but that united front may find some holes for the right price.

 

If Health Care reform is broken up into little pieces, which any big reform idea should be, it’s far more likely that certain Republican senators will splinter off the united front.

 

If you are a moderate Republican Senator, and you’re not running for re-election in 2010, what is your motivation to not accept a few favors and be the 60^th vote on a smaller package? 

 

Three GOP Senators supported a bailout of the Auto Industry earlier last year, so it's not unheard of.

 

The united GOP Senate front today has several members that could waffle and Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine tops the list. And remember that the heroic Senator -Elect Brown comes from a state with a state run health care program.

 

For at least another week or two, Republicans will continue to preen and Democrats will lick their wounds. But I think right around Valentine’s Day, we can expect to see the first of several smaller Health Care proposals beginning to surface and don’t be shocked if you see a few GOP waffles taking advantage of the situation.

 

If great cinema like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Legally Blonde 2 have taught us anything, it is that politicians are human and can be swayed to ignore their principles and their party.

 

When it happens this time, just try not to look too shocked.

Most people agree that the Republican victory of the U.S. Senate Seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for over half a century is a pivotal moment in American politics.

 

But I think the pivot can take different turns for both Republicans and Democrats.

 

In the short term, this loss will invigorate the GOP and cause many Democrats, especially in conservative states or districts, to wonder if this is a sign of things to come. Is this loss the first of many where angry voters take out their frustration on Democrats?

 

Well, it might be, but I think that will have more to do with how both parties react to this moment, more than this moment by itself.

 

If the GOP sees this as a sign that voters are angry everywhere and will automatically support them in November, this will be a short lived celebration for them. Scott Brown won the race in Massachusetts by taking absolutely nothing for granted and working for every vote.

 

Yes, voter anger helped him, but his victory was also aided by an opponent that ran one of the worst campaigns in Massachusetts history and did one key thing wrong. She took voters for granted.

 

If the GOP learns that lesson and works as hard as Brown did for voters, then they may in fact be celebrating in November. But if they get cocky, count on another 2 years in the wilderness.

 

For the Democratic Party, their reaction is even more important for their future. If they think this was some kind of anomaly and feel that they really only have to react to the Health Care reform issue and not the general mood of voters, their stay in power in just about over.

 

They must learn from Coakley that voters want to hear about general issues, and not about wedge issues. They must also learn that there is no such thing as a safe state or safe district.

 

If Democrats can learn from this historic butt whoopin’, and learn to appreciate voters and the issues they really care about, this will be the moment they look back upon with pride, and as the key to victories in November.

 

It’s all about what lesson which party learns. The lesson is not complicated, nor hidden inside a riddle-like enigma. The lesson is simply that, working hard to understand and appreciate voters on the issues they really care about, can bring about surprising results.

 

But for being such a simple lesson, you’d be surprised how hard it is to learn.

Do you ever get those moments where after you read a story, you sit there and stammer and mumble at the page in amazed befuddlement, hoping you’re reading a work of fiction? If you haven’t lately and are in the mood for a good befuddlement, I recommend reading just about any story covering President Obama’s proposed bank tax.

 

President Obama, doing his best impression of that guy from the movie, “Network” who was “mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it anymore”, announced the idea on Thursday. President Obama called the huge bonuses some bankers were obscene.

 

He said, “We want our money back,” at a press conference aimed as a populist demand to all of those rich bankers making obscene bonuses with all of our tax money.

 

Well, those bonuses must be the problem, right?  Maybe not.

Try to follow this. And if it makes any sense to you, please explain it to me, because I am thoroughly confused.

Back in 2008, the previous Congress approved TARP, the $700 billion dollar bailout of everything. Of that $700 billion, $247 billion was given to banks. Reportedly, $162 billion has been paid back by banks, plus an $11 billion in interest.

While most of the banks have been repaying their loans, not all of the $700 billion is expected to be repaid. In fact, the government expects to lose about $117 billion from the loans given to GM, Chrysler and AIG.

So, to make up that $117 billion loss, from non-bank loans, there is a new proposed bank tax that would raise $90 billion dollars over ten years. 

I told you it was confusing. And when you see something this confusing, you want to point a finger of blame at somebody. The problem here is that you may not have enough fingers to do all the blaming. Here’s a potential short list, and why the blame doesn’t sit squarely on one set of shoulders.

President Obama – Does he deserve to get the blame for this debacle or credit for at least finding a way to get some of the proposed $117 billion dollar loss recouped somewhere? Yes, it may be an imperfect solution, but at least it’s trying to actually get back money into the treasury, which you have to admit is a nice change of pace.

 

Banks – They’re paying millions in bonuses, lighting cigars with our tax payer money, why shouldn’t they pay? Well, one reason is that they are among the only entities actually paying their TARP loans back. Also, be sure to remember that no company gets a tax that customers don’t pay for them.

 

The Previous Congress and President Bush – They authored TARP in the first place and passed it so fast that no one had time to think about how to get the $700 billion dollars back. Honestly, they told us that it was imperative to approve nearly $1 trillion in emergency loans, but no one had the forethought that some of the entities simply wouldn’t pay back the money, or come up with a way to handle that problem? Seriously?

 

The Current Congress – They have extended TARP, included the car companies and despite the mess the previous Congress left them, did very little to change the situation. Well, except for supporting a new tax on the few companies paying taxpayers back.

 

I told you that your fingers would be busy. Be sure to not be fooled to let either political party off the hook. The original TARP proposal was passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Republican President. And after that, new TARP programs were extended by an even more Democratic Congress and a Democratic President.

 

Like I said before, if any of you have this figured out, please explain it to me. As you can see, I am thoroughly befuddled.