Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Polis off to great start

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Will a liberal freshman congressman from Colorado turn out to be the most eloquent opponent in the coming year of federal bailouts of failing corporations? Could be. Second District Rep. Jared Polis is off to a terrific start.

In a column Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Polis advised politicians to admit when they are in over their heads, as in their attempts to save the Big Three automakers.

"Our United States Congress of lawyers, doctors, diplomats, retired military officers and career politicians," Polis wrote, "along with their staffs of intelligent young political science majors and MBAs, now finds itself poring over 'business plans' submitted this week by Ford, GM and Chrysler. People who have never before in their lives seen - no less implemented - a business plan are now trying to decide if these companies will succeed by means of a 'capital infusion' with various imposed preconditions and negotiate what we taxpayers (investors) should be getting for our money. Something is wrong with this picture."

Polis is being kind. Everything is wrong with this picture, as he deftly goes on to point out.

"Most members of Congress and staffers on the Hill are smart people," he acknowledged, "but we should not pretend that we are better at what are so clearly other people's jobs. One of the tremendously difficult tasks that we are ill-equipped to successfully orchestrate is restoring these three failing companies to health. As one of the members of Congress with a strong business background, I know what I don't know in business. While I hold my colleagues in great esteem, I doubt their abilities as turnaround artists are very much superior to mine."

If politicians are going to try to save the Big Three from bankruptcy - a fate that Polis seems to understand might not be the worst of all outcomes - they should do it by offering incentives to the private sector to come to the rescue, he says. "One way of doing that is to provide an exemption from capital-gains taxation on all debt or equity instruments used in the next six months to invest in the troubled automakers," he suggested.

A long shot? Of course, but it's still a good idea that at least wouldn't put taxpayers at risk.

More than a year ago, I suggested that Polis would prove to be a far more independent member of Congress than the Democratic front-runner at the time, former state Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald. But I hardly expected him to prove it before he'd even taken the oath of office.

More like 'fool-efficient'

The most important policy disputes in the next few years might not occur between liberals and conservatives so much as between liberals like Polis who know what they don't know and liberals who know everything - or at least act as if they do.

Consider the goal of getting Americans to buy more fuel-efficient cars. If you're the type of big-car hater who knows everything, then you'll probably appreciate The New York Times' stark approach to the issue: It proposes to outlaw large vehicles.

"Congress should require much tighter commitments on fuel economy" as a price for a bailout, the Times has declared. " . . . If the companies were willing to make smaller cars, they could achieve [a fleetwide average of] 50 mpg. Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out SUVs and vans by a certain date."

Simply phase them out! Have the editorial writers in Manhattan never met anyone who had a legitimate reason to own an SUV or van? Or is the problem that they can't imagine that a consumer's freedom of choice might ever trump their fixation on fuel economy?

The more pragmatic, less bossy writers at The Washington Post propose a different path toward fuel economy: a consumption tax. "Congress should enact a steep, inflation-indexed hike in gas taxes, one big enough to alter consumer incentives and habits permanently. . . . The increase could be rebated through the income tax system."

The Post's solution is less disruptive and less coercive, and more respectful of the chance that the writers' priorities might be wrong. By contrast, folks who know everything never entertain that possibility.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • December 11, 2008

    2:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LeaDenton writes:

    How many additional fatalities would there be as a result of a lighter, more fuel-efficient fleet? I drive a Civic, 35 MPG highway, and I know I’m taking a greater risk of serious injury than the guy next to me driving an SUV. I’m willing to take that risk; perhaps the SUV driver isn’t. What gives Congress the right to decide whether I can choose to pay more in gasoline for the additional safety of a heavier vehicle? Congress has the power, sure, but how many of these decisions will government take from the people before there is a political price? And then, will it be too late?

    This is just one of many instances in which our freedoms may be eroded in the near future. Mr. Carroll is adept at pointing these out, and I appreciate that; it’s journalism at its best, and I will miss that if the Rocky closes.

  • December 11, 2008

    6:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    blacksho89 writes:

    "The railroads in the country were ordered to reduce the maximum speed of all trains to sixty miles per hour-to reduce the maximum length of all trains to sixty cars-and to run the same number of trains in every state of a zone composed of five neighboring states, the country being divided in such zones for a purpose.
    The steel mills of the country were ordered to limit the maximum production of any alloy to an amount equal to the production of other metal alloys by other mills placed in the same classification of plant capacity..." p 317 Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

    Note to the New York Times: Planned economies DO NOT WORK! Most of the salaries of the assembly line workers were paid by the profits on the evil SUVs.People buy them; that's why they are built!

  • December 11, 2008

    7:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jerseycorn writes:

    "People buy them; that's why they are built!"

    They don't buy them anymore and that's a big reason why the auto industry is failing and asking for a bailout in the first place. And by the way, the NYT is not advocating for a "planned economy" -- that's quite a leap.

  • December 11, 2008

    8:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ItsJustme writes:

    Utopia - no cars bigger than a Civic, national highway speed limit of 35 mph, city speed limit of 15 mph, police every 500 feet, no following closer than 50 feet, no stop signs or lights, and no intersecting streets. That would provide excellent fuel economy and hardly any accidents.

  • December 11, 2008

    8:41 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Let badly run companies fail. They will be replaced by better run companies. So what if some people lose their jobs? They will be employed by the replacement companies. The cycle goes on.

    When the government attempts to guarantee the outcome all government does is erode personal liberty.

  • December 11, 2008

    9:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    blacksho89 writes:

    jersey-you are wrong. Sorry to be so blunt. Since gas prices have dropped, sales of SUVs are back up. And if FORCING a manufacturer to build a product that people do not want is not a part of a planned economy, I have a statue in Leningrad I'd like to sell you.

  • December 11, 2008

    10:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    David_R writes:

    It's refreshing to see a politician know their own limits and not claim intellectual invincibility. I hope that Mr. Polis is able to retain his objectivity after being a member of the club for a while. Heaven knows the Congress can use a heavy dose of reality.

  • December 11, 2008

    10:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Polis is in a protected seat and the Democrats have a large majority in the House. He can stray from the official Democratic position on this issue because his vote is not necessary. On most issues, he will be a reliable vote for the Democrats. Still his ideas on the bailout are a welcome rebuttal to the standard Democratic positions.

  • December 11, 2008

    10:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    i completely expected this to be sarcastic

  • December 11, 2008

    12:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    zivo24 writes:

    mmannino,

    Perhaps you need to read Polis' resume to understand why he came to the conclusions that he did in his article.

    Polis was creating business plans when he was still a teen-ager...for companies that he did create and then lead to great success and wealth.

    This isn't about him "rebutting standard democratic positions".

    Its a very successful businessman speaking very eloquently about a subject that he knows alot about.

  • December 11, 2008

    1:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    Now if only we could get politicians, just like Polis, to admit that they know nothing about what it takes to produce electricity, what it takes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or what needs to be done to plan for our future energy needs (which of course has absolutely nothing to do with independence from foreign oil, a statement most of them use in the same sentence as wind power), then I'd celebrate.

    Something tells me Sen Reid of Nevada won't let the truth of that be spoken by anyone. After all he has built his reputation, and the fortune of Al Gore, by preying on the common ignorance and fear of nuclear energy. Even Polis won't go that far. They are only willing to point out the emperor's nudity when they themselves are wearing loin cloths.

  • December 11, 2008

    1:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Fireball writes:

    Polis certainly knows best business practices, he proved it by literally "buying" this election. Although I am not a fan (how could you tell?), I must applaud him for these statements. When Pelosi initially asked for a business plan, I said: "Oh sure, and who would be qualified to read and understand it, surely no one in congress." Any CEO smart enough to hold the position could put together a sham plan and snow them. Kudos to Polis for telling it like it is. Maybe I can learn to like him.

  • December 11, 2008

    1:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

    Polis is a fiscal realist that even I could get behind. It is no small wonder that the unions supported Joan Fitzgerald so heavily in the primary; Polis wasn't going to do their bidding!

    Quite refreshing.

  • December 11, 2008

    3:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    I've had a growing sense of unease for some time now that our most high ranking leaders in the House and Senate actually have no idea what they're doing, either.

    They need to go.

  • December 11, 2008

    11:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    All these people crying "Let them fail! Who cares about the fat lazy workers?"
    I wonder if they'll have the same attitude when their job goes down the tubes. Just another inefficient business with overpaid bums, right?
    I wonder if they'll still be smug and saying "I've got mine, you go to hell!"

  • December 12, 2008

    1:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Logical writes:

    Anyone that has been paying attention will know a "failed" carmaker will not close and lay off all workers. That is an alarmist argument. The car makers may file bankruptcy if they don't get the bailout. That is good. And while in bankruptcy, they may be purchased by another car company. (Although I doubt any of the profitable companies would buy them, what with all their ancient equipment that the unions haven't let them upgrade to newer, more efficient, technologies.)

    Yes, some entities (businesses and people) will be hurt. But, the majority of current workers will still have jobs (even if 25% of workers are let go, 75% are still working). There is bloat at the car makers. It has to go. Letting them continue as they are now, via a bailout, will not solve anything, and will only delay their demise. A delayed bankruptcy reorganization is not a success, but that seems to be what some want. "As long as it doesn't happen to me, I don't care who it hurts later" seems to be the attitude of those hoping for a bailout. How selfish!

  • December 16, 2008

    11:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    CDee writes:

    Logical writes:

    "Anyone that has been paying attention will know a "failed" carmaker will not close and lay off all workers. That is an alarmist argument."

    Please explain that point to all the employees of Saturn dealerships when they start closing because they have no support from GM.
    I am sure the employees at the plants that make parts for Pontiacs will understand completely when they are no longer needed because Pontiac was fazed out.
    Did you actually read the business plans or just the parts the media wanted to tell you about?