Denver DA could get $32,000 raise
Council president worried about how it will be perceived
By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published December 16, 2008 at 1:12 p.m.
Photo by Dennis Schroeder © The Rocky
Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey says the culture that does not come forward with the information that can solve murders must change as he announces that a Grand jury Indictment was issued against Willie Clark for the murder of former Broncos star Darrent Williams.
Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey is poised to receive a $32,000 salary increase in 2009, bringing his annual pay to $177,000 and raising questions for the City Council president about how the raise will be perceived during such a difficult economy.
Morrissey is set to get an additional $10,000 each year through 2012.
"I think Mitch Morrissey has done a superior job," said City Council President Jeanne Robb. "He's probably one of the most outstanding DAs in the country, with all the work that he has done on DNA and cold-case-type stuff. On the other hand, this is a tough time for everyone, and so I'm concerned about the perception among city employees."
City workers are facing the possibility of mandatory furlough days without pay and other cost-saving measures to avoid layoffs next year.
Robb declined to say whether she would vote against the proposed pay increase for Morrissey. Her colleagues said she proposed spreading the increase over four years, but her idea doesn't seem to be gaining much traction.
Morrissey's proposed raise from his $145,000 annual salary is an "equity issue," said Lynn Kimbrough, a spokeswoman for the Denver district attorney. "If you want skilled people with the expertise who are going to provide that core government function of public safety, there does have to be fair compensation - not outrageous compensation - but fair," she said.
Kimbrough said Morrissey hasn't received a raise in four years. She called the proposed increase "modest."
Ted Tow, executive director of the Colorado District Attorney's Council, said state statute requires that a district attorney's salary be set now for the entire term. "No changes can be made mid-term," he said.
Tow said the state pays 80 percent of the mandatory minimum salary of $100,000, and the city has to pay the other 20 percent, plus anything above the mandatory minimum.
During the council's weekly meeting with Mayor John Hickenlooper on Tuesday, Councilman Charlie Brown said he hopes Robb's concerns will be resolved before Monday's council meeting.
"Debating salaries on the floor is not very comfortable," he said. "It's awkward, and I hope we can stay away from that."
"Don't look at me," joked Hickenlooper. "I'm just the mayor."
chacond@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5099
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
December 16, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
That is insane. Who gets that much of a raise ever? I'm sick of our elected officials giving themselves and their buddies excessive money. Who cares if people in other places get paid better? That much of an increase can not possibly be justified.
December 16, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
kodijack writes:
If you read the whole thing it is actually fair, but man, could not be worse timing.
December 16, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
reddog writes:
Like this guys worth it?? Great timing when all the rest of us are tightening our belts to get by.
December 16, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
They must think like GM does. pay the big boys big bucks, put out a second rate product, and then when they go broke, ask for a bailout. the answer is NO
December 16, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
$32,000 RAISE?
That's a teacher's salary for an entire year.
That's the equivalent of half a charge nurse salary, and 2/3 what a police officer makes. It's about 3/4 what a starting fire fighter earns. It's a new car, cash on the table.
And it's just about the same ammount that my family of four lives on, after taxes.
Unbefrigginlievable.
December 16, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Outlaw writes:
What economic downturn. Business as usual in Denver.
December 16, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
This is simply unbelievable! The members of the Joint Budget Committee must go through the Judiciary Department's 2009 budget line by line and be brutal in cutting. Enough is enough!!
December 16, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
wyhammertime writes:
I can see that he is not a member of the BUDGET CUT CLASS and what are we going to do about it ?????? Nothing right just yell like a mashed cat and let it go !!!!
December 16, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
theairdog writes:
I used to teach flying for $25 an hour. I knew some attorneys taking flying lessons who actually complained about the instructor rate. As if they had ever risked their lives every time they met with a client.
December 16, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
gatengreen writes:
What an excellent way to show how government treats an economic downturn!!
Life long politicians do not have a clue when it comes to money.
December 16, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
surferon writes:
It's good to be a government employee, it's even better if you're a lawyer that works for the government. What a slap to the face of other city employees.
December 16, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
dcolon47 writes:
Just another slap in the face by Ritter and his freinds, considering how many people have lost their jobs around Christmas. You have a Merry Christmas Mr D.A. and keep on putting the scum back on the street.
December 16, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Yes sir, if you make enough city workers take furloughs next year, we'll have more than enough for the big guys to get raises. Civil servant my @ss, the taxpayers are the real servant here! It's good to be King, maybe like Mel Brooks he can shoot a few peasants, while asking the pi$$ boy to stand in for him. Great timing Denver!
December 16, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Yup, the City scum-of-the-Earth gets an outrageous pay raise while the Coalition for the Homeless has to cut staff because a City of Denver grant ran out. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
Yup, those lawyers and politicians sure do have a heart! It is intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers that the Denver City Council has its lips surgically attached to the City scum-of-the-Earth's backside.
Scott
December 16, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
I think you are all being a bit ridiculous. The article says he hasn't had a pay raise in four years, and likely won't be up for one for an additional four years. In the past four years my pay has gone up by $18k, and I don't make nearly as much as him.
It doesn't matter that he's a government employee or not. If you think your salary is too low in comparison maybe you should go back to school and become a lawyer.
December 16, 2008
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bouldergeist writes:
If Morrissey did his freakin' job, I wouldn't mind it.
December 16, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Morrissey should be removed from office, not remunerated more than what 95% of other Americans earn! Perhaps if Mr. Morrissey and the cabal of Denver officials of which he is a part would respect the Law and the civil rights of the citizens of Denver, the citizens might reciprocate -- I think that there is a connection between the contempt Morrissey has for us and the reluctance of some to cooperate with police.
I don't appreciate Mayor Chickenpooper's pathetic dodge either; such buffoonery says a lot about Denver and its low expectations. I can't even manage much of a sneer because C.P.R. reports that he is actually being considered for appointment to the U.S. Senate.
December 16, 2008
3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
I earned my last raise; I didn't get it because a person from another company was making more.
December 16, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
blm69 writes:
While I know nothing about this particular DA, I do know that you typically get what you pay for. If districts want to attract the most competent attorneys to be DA's, they will have to keep up with the marketplace for attorneys with similar experience and skills. In some districts around the state the DA's were making around 60 grand -- hardly worth it for a very stressful job.
December 16, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
"Morrissey should be removed from office, not remunerated more than what 95% of other Americans earn!"
You can choose not to vote for him. But if he is voted in, he deserves a competitive wage. It has no bearing what 95% of other Americans earn. It only matters what similarly skilled people in his own field earn. If District Attorneys are paid beans compared to the private sector, the quality individuals will all leave for the private sector. I, for one, would rather we have quality people in public office.
December 16, 2008
3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
"Romanesco writes:
I earned my last raise; I didn't get it because a person from another company was making more."
I earned my last pay raise too. But I flat out guarantee that my company based the amount of that raise on industry standards for my skillset. Actually, they say it in writing on our internal webpage.
December 16, 2008
4 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
"If District Attorneys are paid beans compared to the private sector, ..."
$177,000 is far from "beans", though. As is his current salary of $145,000.
If a public servant thinks $145,000 is too low, that person's interest lies on personal finance and not on civic duty.
December 16, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
roxy19 writes:
consider also the student loans he (probably) took on, as well as the 4 yrs? "lost" income he sacrificed while continuing his education in law school. what does the average Denver attorney make? my guess is much more.
December 16, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Romanesco, the key word is "compared". It is only fair to compare his salary to his peers. Not to the average Denver citizen. Believe me, I'd love to make that much money, but I don't begrudge the fact that he is.
I would estimate that a person of his experience in the private sector would make far in excess of $145,000.
December 16, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
how does his salary compare to those he goes up against? We need to be competitive (if we want to win cases), how much do attorneys in private sector get paid?
December 16, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
Another thought:
The private sector is interested in making money, and it behooves companies to keep their salaries level with market standards to prevent employees from moving to their competitors.
Local governments exist neither to make a profit, nor to compete with other governments when it comes to "customers".
December 16, 2008
4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
EastVail writes:
This list of comments is pathetic. What a bunch of jealous whiners! If your pay is inadequate and your life stinks, why don't you look in the mirror and figure out why. Or you could just keep on blaming the world.
If you haven't realized yet that you don't get what you "deserve" but rather what you negotiate, then maybe it's about time you did realize this.
I earn far more than this DA and would NEVER even remotely consider doing what he does for even 1/2 the pay.
He's absurdly underpaid and does what he does because he is a public servant. I admire him and feel nothing but gratitude towards him.
December 16, 2008
4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
"Don't look at me," joked Hickenlooper. "I'm just the mayor."
That say's it all!
December 16, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
EastVail writes: "What a bunch of jealous whiners!"
I don't think anyone is jealous; we're trying to figure out why the man is getting a $62,000 raise (including the 10k/year to 2012) in the midst of a poor economy and looming personnel cuts.
December 16, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
watcher1 writes:
Grabbing a $32k raise? Now? In 2008?
Wow.
You go people! Get it while you can!
December 16, 2008
4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
EastVail writes:
I repeat:
If you haven't realized yet that you don't get what you "deserve" but rather what you negotiate, then maybe it's about time you did realize this.
December 16, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
blm69 writes: "While I know nothing about this particular DA, I do know that you typically get what you pay for"
I would hope, however, that a public servant takes into consideration the fact the he/she is there to serve the public, not to make high sums of money.
Of course, I'm an idealist.
December 16, 2008
4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Romanesco, I think as this article clearly states he hasn't had a pay raise in four years. $32k from his starting salary over four years works out to about 5%/year. I think that's completely fair. My pay raises over the last five years have worked out to 7%/year.
Your insistence that government is different from the private sector is why we expect crap out of the government, because no one of value is interested.
December 16, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
EastVail: "If you haven't realized yet that you don't get what you "deserve" but rather what you negotiate, then maybe it's about time you did realize this. "
This may work in the private sector, but I don't think public officials should "negotiate" their own raises. Theoretically, it should be up to the taxpayer.
December 16, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Public servant is an overused term. The peace corps, teach for america, pta board, etc...are public servants.
Being a mayor, senator, teacher, etc....are jobs. They are employees of the nation, and the citizens are the stockholders.
December 16, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
Romaesco, in your opinion, how exactly should the government set the salaries of public employees?
To me, using a survey of private sector firms seems the most readily available, unbiased source of information out there, but if you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
Of course, I'm a realist.
December 16, 2008
4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
"Romanesco, in your opinion, how exactly should the government set the salaries of public employees?"
The federal government has the "GS" and "SES" pay structures. If state/city governments could use the same structure, I feel that would be adequate, and would eliminate the (in my opinion) large raises.
December 16, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
"The state is increasing its share all across the state for all the judicial districts,"
I don't recall seeing this on the ballot.
Is Charles Dickens writing this script?
December 16, 2008
5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
His raise is more than my yearly salary before taxes. That's our representative government for you, I guess. Politicians tell us that they are just like us, and then they live a charmed life. Bad timing; Bad idea.
December 16, 2008
5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Fortunately for efficiency, we elect representatives to vote for us on budget items.
December 16, 2008
5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
The GS and SES pay structures go up every year based on service AND an inflation adjusted %, this guy hasn't had a raise in four years.
From the article:
"Had he been getting raises equivalent to what employees were getting, he'd be at this point, too," she said.
So what you are proposing would actually cost taxpayers MORE since we would have been paying him a raise every year for the last four years as opposed to making him wait.
Get over the sticker shock and realize your argument has no merit, the city needs to pay competitive wages to employ competitive talent.
Oh, and who sets those pay scales by the way? The taxpayer? I don't think so, I've never voted on them...
December 16, 2008
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Hank, cry some more. Are you a lawyer? Are you doing comparable work?
I have gotten several raises that are more than my wife's yearly salary before taxes. But guess what, I'm a college educated specialist and she's working as a receptionist while she gets her degree. Is it unfair that I make so much more money? Dubious.
Charmed life? I doubt that work as a DA is very glamorous. And I don't give a rat's a$$ is politicians are "just like me". In fact, I would very much like them to be better than me.
December 16, 2008
5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Bagel, roxy19, Spencer, EastVail, mrwiizrd: Try to wrap your minds around this outlandish fact: some people are motivated by ideals rather than money. Several of the Founding Fathers certainly benefitted from the Revolution, but our government would never have been instituted in the first place if they had not hazarded their lives and placed principle over profit. "No one of value is interested" -- B.S! No one of value could possibly be motivated primarily by pecuniary interest. Mitch Morrissey may be one of the most telegenic attorneys in Denver, but I am certain we could come up with a better D.A. for less than his present salary. I suppose based on the non-response to my previous comments that most of you imagine that it is the job of the D.A. to run roughshod over the rights of citizens -- I don't. The situation IS entirely analogous to that in private industry: even with businesses falling into bankruptcy all around us due to their own incompetence, some people have their ideological blinders so firmly affixed that even now they think that the relevant question regarding the compensation of executives should be "what are other [incompetent] executives making?" rather than "how competent is this executive?". Does anyone reading this article care about Mr. Morrissey's conduct of his office?
December 16, 2008
5:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
solar:
1. "some people are motivated by ideals rather than money".
- I agree, but what's your point? That to be a DA you HAVE to have this motivation? Why?
2. "No one of value could possibly be motivated primarily by pecuniary interest."
- Is this a joke? Frankly I don't like the stress of being an engineer, but the pay's awesome. And I'm still a d@mn good one regardless of my motivation.
3. "how competent is this executive?".
- Competent enough to get elected. The panel overseeing him should have no discretion on this matter. It is up to the citizens (the stockholders) to decide whether he keeps his job, and the board to decide what his compensation is for that job.
December 16, 2008
5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
Bagel,
That's not crying, it is stating fact. Is that a touch of bullying on your part? Should I just shut up, so you can count your money? There is more to our Democracy than Capitalism. Read the fine print.
AVs are on; I'm signing off.
December 16, 2008
5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
There's no reason to bring up how much you make unless you're in a similar situation to him. Unless of course you just want to complain that you don't make as much. And I'm not sure how stating that fact constitutes bullying.
Please explain your fine print to me, otherwise I'll just assume you're angry at his success.
December 16, 2008
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
Well, before I go, it would seem from what I'm hearing that the worker (the auto worker for example) should make the least money possible, while the CEO, lawyers, politicians and the like should make the most money possible. Bottom line.
I not angry, just not very well represented.
We can pick this up again tomorrow. You know where to find me.
December 16, 2008
7:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
StillUndecided writes:
Hank,
You are absolutely correct, because that is the way the system is set up. I have never worked for the government, but I have been in corporate management for many years. Management gets paid more for keeping the salaries of those below them low. If you hire a new employee for $40K when the budget is $50K, your year end bonus will be larger for saving $10K. Likewise, if the budget for salary increases is 5% and you can give your staff just 3% without them all quitting; once again you get paid more. It has nothing to do with being fair or what the market is paying; it is all about getting the job done for the lowest possible cost. This is where EastVail is correct; you must negotiate the absolute highest possible starting salary you can because the deck is stacked against you from that point on.
December 16, 2008
7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Well this ws so nice to read in the paper.
This guy is getting a pay raise while the rest of the country is standing in lines at the food kitchen.
Wonder if this guy was unhappy why he didn't just quit and let someone else who could use the money have the job.
I think it is time to cut back and downsize for the pay for everyone and if he can make more then feel free to do so.
Just don't cut back on schools,libraries,and other services that benefit the taxpayer.
How about hiring a another police officer and maybe a firefighter instead of his pay raise.
They are a more direct effect on the community and safety.
December 16, 2008
8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jfkdem47 writes:
Sounds like "hush" money. Keep the lid on the coverups and corruption, and get rewarded from those with an interest to keep everything under wraps.
December 16, 2008
8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Bagel: I preface my response by noting that your comments above demonstrate a slavishly uncritical acceptance of the belief that corporate capitalism is a proper model for our society -- this of course is dead wrong; our government, our schools are NOT corporations, nor are our citizens "stockholders" this is an dysfunctional and inappropriate metaphor at best.
1 & 2) I should have thought that the point was obvious. Public servants (an underused phrase) are not simply employees; they exist to serve the commonweal. Why is it necessary that they have other than pecuniary interest in their position? Because they exist to serve the commonweal, their "work product" is (to varying degrees) public policy. Must I explain that self-interest is not always identical with the public interest? No District Attorney or other powerful government official should be motivated primarily by the income derived from the job because, unlike a mechanism which is engineered and then produced, public policy is not so easily evaluated as to its utility and functionality. Too, government officials who seek office simply for the remuneration must surely comprise the bulk of those charged with criminal corruption as they have so many opportunities to sell political favors and influence.
3) Here your corporate mindset has completely taken over. The DA's job responsibilities have nothing to do with being elected; the mere fact of his election constitutes no confirmation of his legal acuity or competence. I don't know to what "board" you refer as properly determining his salary; apparently it is under the purview of the Denver City Council.
You and several other posters are delusional about the notion of competitive wages. Corporate America sets arbitrary standards for evaluating talent and disdains even to consider many people able and willing to perform the jobs it wants to fill; why should our government repeat and compound these mistakes? No attorney in private practice sets policy as the Denver District Atorney does; there is no comparable work in the private sector. I reiterate my belief that there are many able attorneys who would be willing to perform the job of District Attorney for less than what Morrissey makes now. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but if Rob Corry were to run, I'd certainly vote for him over Mitch Morrissey. In the one-party state which is Denver, we often don't have any choice at the ballot box. I didn't vote for Morrissey, but his was the only name on the ballot!
All You Apologists for Corporate Capitalism: it is decades and decades past the point we should have started questioning the basis of "the system" and the hoary, false assumptions you endlessly repeat. The refutation of those assumptions is in the news every day. The consequences of generations of foolish policies and doctrines are dire and at hand. Must we continue driving our nation to catastrophe because of capitalist ideology?
December 16, 2008
8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
nuttree23 writes:
The "haves and have not’s". What is Obama’s definition of wealth/rich $250,000? Read the whole article, no raise in four years! If you want the best you need to pay for the best. Actually we are getting a great public servant at a reasonable salary; he could take a job in the private sector and get twice the salary proposed in this article. Hence the term 'Public Servant'. What the hell do any of you know about the amount of time this man puts into his job, Most of you would be yelling for overtime after 40 hours a week! This man probably puts in 80-100 hour a week when most work 40.
December 16, 2008
9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
I'm conflicted: I think 177 grand is excessive, but compared to what CEOs pull down in this country, Morrisey's getting bargain-basement wages. At least he actually performs a public service. I say deal with all the obscene business executive compensation, then worry about this guy's relative pittance.
December 16, 2008
9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
nuttree23 writes:
solar_satellite; you are a gifted writer and I can only wish to write as elegantly as you, big words and all. Give it a break, if you hate this corporate capitalist society so much Move to Cuba with Johnny Depp you Commie! And for Scott and the Homeless Coalition story; I have never seen such waste at a not-for-profit in my whole life! If the people only knew what was going on at the Coalition they would not donate another dime.
December 16, 2008
9:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
SovereignAmericanForum writes:
when are We the People going to take responsibility for our government?!? When are we going to stand up as We the People and say enough is enough?
A RAISE for someone whose job is to suppress the people- especially in the current economy- is an outrage.
Go down to the court house and protest. The courts should seek to save money by reducing frivolous law suits (see 'Loser Pays example in Las Vegas) and by reducing pointless tickets (parking, etc). A raise for the DA does not help the People.
www.SovereignAmericanForum.com
December 16, 2008
11:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
cdmdenver writes:
JUST SAY NO! We are the Taxpayers-Remember??
Hello No, this is abuse and compliance at the top
levels. Morrisey is instituting laws that are illegal
and cause fines and seizures in violation of Federal
Law. Have questions Mitch, call me!!
December 16, 2008
11:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
WestminsterJ: By all means we should act immediately to reign in executive compensation, but the critical difference here is that Morrissey is a public servant. We must expect a higher standard of the officials of our government. At the risk of repearting myself, many people can do Mr. Morrissey's job and he already earns more than 95% (it's actually a higher percentage than that) of all Americans; that should be more than enough. It is just bizarre to describe such a prodigious income as a pittance.
nuttree23: Let Morrissey go find that $200,000 per annum job! I just suggested an enormously competent local attorney for DA (though I don't know whether he'd want it). Is there any basis for your assertion that the Denver DA works 80-100 hours per week (besides an overweaning reverence for authority)? I didn't think so.
Thanks for your compliment, however backhanded. I don't hate our society, but I do hate the pernicious toll taken on it by the philosophy of greed represented by corporate capitalism (it's not just communists who are opposed to greed -- have you ever read the Gospels?). Many of the nations of western Europe have avoided some of our excesses, are more democratic than we are, and enjoy a higher standard of living than we do. America should be capable of learning from its multifarious mistakes and change for the better, even now. I didn't know that Johnny Depp had moved to Cuba, but I don't pay much attention to Hollywood or its "stars". What is wrong with the Coalition for the Homeless, or are you simply opposed to the homeless themselves?
SovereignAmericanForum: Politics makes for strange bedfellows! Your name/website remind me of the Posse Comitatus freaks. I certainly respect the Constitution, but it is not perfect, nor should it be considered in isolation from the rest of our laws and history. I like your idea about protesting Morrissey's obscene raise, but acting to reduce frivolous lawsuits isn't going to significantly reduce the costs of government, and as for parking tickets, aren't they the chief source of revenue for the City of Denver?
December 17, 2008
12:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
igetit writes:
How about Morrisy getting a $32K reduction in salary? What are they thinking? In tough times like these, what kind of message are elected officials sending to taxpayers? Remember this at election time!
December 17, 2008
1:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
igetit: At election time it is far too late to do anything about it! Morrissey and other Denver Democrats ran unopposed in the last general election. We need progressive and competent candidates to run against the party hacks in the primary, and we need to bring home the message that it is not enough just to be a Democrat to the Party in Denver. There is obviously something wrong with party politics in Denver when the likes of Chickenpooper can be re-elected with 85% of the vote, and the lion's share of the blame falls on clueless, unengaged Democratic voters in Denver! Other than the ability to schmooze with other rich bastards I don't know of any qualification he holds for high office.
December 17, 2008
3:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
SOLAR_SATALLITE, I like your comments,don't agree, however one thing caught my eye as an independent voter, unaffiliated; you stated you never voted for a republican? So when Jimmy Carter ran for a second term against Ronald Reagan, with the Iranian hostages sitting there hundreds of of days, our economy in shambles, our nation totally demoralized, you voted for Jimmy Carter to keep on leading our nation a second term? Your comments I enjoyed very much, although I disagree with some parts; but that one affirmation of unwavering loyalty in that particular statement kind of hit me. I remain unaffiliated, and always looked to the character of the man and his ability to lead, verses blind party loyalty. I guess that's how people like the former mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, or Daily of Chicago, keep getting re-elected regardless of how corrupt they are. That's intresting.
December 17, 2008
3:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
I also like your assesment of Mr. Hinkenlooper, I always thought Webb was the mayor who had the juice to be totally untouchable and corrupt. Pena, whose immigration stance and other issues always peeved me, was perhaps the last good mayor that Denver had. Webb had no opposition, his kid got off for every criminal act imaginable, stealing U.S. mail to even telling the cops he was the mayors kid and they couldn't touch him. Even his bodyguards (Denver Police Officers) could lose a gun and show up at a hospital cut up and walk without any repercussions. Then last year a charter school operator took 500,000 in public money and illegally converted it to her own private business, instead of using it for the public charter school. She even knowingly hired felons, drug dealers and a notorious gang leader as employees to work with the kids, Then after this corruption is revealed, Webb steps in, and it all quietly goes away with the lady resigning. RMN let it go as they came off as being in his pocket. You and I would have went to prison for anyone of these acts. Now thats juice. I hate to see any candidate, regardless of party run unopposed, it just not good for the people. Pena always had tough competition, especially Don Bain.
December 17, 2008
5:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Louie: My knowledge of Denver's political history is limited; I moved here last year. I would like to see another party contest races in Denver, I just don't want it to be the Republican Party.
I do not share your opinion of Jimmy Carter's presidency. I do not blame him for the idiotic policies pursued by previous administrations which contributed to the hostage-taking. I never accepted the belief of many that he was responsible either for their abduction or for not getting them released. I do not blame him for the Arab oil embargo. I do not blame him for America's demoralization. I did vote for him over Reagan, who sold us lies we were only too willing to buy and doubled our national debt building weapons never deployed (Pershing II) or impractical (Star Wars). I have heard people say approvingly that Reagan made America feel good about itself; that may be true, but we had no cause to be proud of our country's behavior under his administration, waging an unprovoked, undeclared, and illegal war against Nicaragua and a war by proxy (Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban) against the Soviet Union. Jimmy Carter is one of the most intelligent presidents we ever had, and in my opinion quite able. America blamed him for calamities not of his making and for having the temerity to suggest that we should regard the energy crisis as the moral equivalent of war. He was absolutely right on that point among others and I wish that he had won. I am certain our country would be in a better position today had he been re-elected. If our nation survives another century I expect that the judgement of history will concur with mine: Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents in our entire history (of course one has to bear in mind the debacle of G.W. Busch too). We cannot afford another such Presidency -- the insane deficit spending engaged by those two in particular has driven our national debt to over $10 trillion with nothing whatsoever to show for it. The fact that both were re-elected makes me doubt that America is capable of democracy.
December 17, 2008
5:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
I was born at the end of the Eisenhower's administration; he was really the last Republican for whom I had much respect. I have no illusions about the competence of Democrats either. I believe that the Founding Father's greatest mistake was the institution of the Presidency, which is largely responsible for the evolution of the so-called "two-party system". We would have been better served by the forms of parliamentary democracies.
The election of 1980 was the first in which I voted. I drank a lot of Coors Light that night, then puked bile for about three hours afterwards. I swore off Coors forever then but I had concluded that the Republican Party did not serve America's interests much earlier, during Nixon's conduct of the Vietnam War. There are individual Republicans whom I respect, but none in public office.
The ability to lead is much less important to me than the direction and policies of the leader; consider e.g. Adolph Hitler. If I ever get the chance to vote for a viable, progressive third party candidate I will do so without hesitation, but most political races so far for me have been a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, and that has meant voting Democratic.
December 17, 2008
5:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Did you notice SOLAR, that when the Democratic Convention was here in Denver, Carter and his wife were present, but that the democrats never had him speak. I think it was because of the memories his failed presidency would remind America of. Funny how Reagan was handed this nation in shambles, and the hostages came home immediately, he not only goes on to restore America's faith and create what we now call Reagan democrats, but when he left office the biggest enemy of our time was no more. Between the Vatican and Reagan, Russia fell, the wall in Berlin came down, and unlike Carter's days as president, Americans were proud again. Reagan far outclassed Carter. If Carter reminded people of being such a great president, I should think the democrats would have had the man speak before the nation at the convention, as they did the eloquently gifted Mr. Clinton. But hey, I understand where your coming from. I just didn't appreciate his weakness as the world trampled over us, as you gave many examples of above. Well, at least the point you made is your personal understanding of Mr. Carter, and I can appreciate that. Thanks!
December 17, 2008
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fun1317 writes:
I have family that works there and a point that many are missing (or dont know about) is that the rest is getting less than a 1% raise. And they are talking up to 20 days off without pay next year.
December 17, 2008
6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Louie: No, Ronald Reagan did not get the hostages released, he did not cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, and he did not bring the Berlin Wall down (nor was the Pope in any way responsible either). "Reagan Democrats" -- they were just conservatives he peeled off from the Party (many were former unionized auto workers who had made their pile and become middle-aged); this term has already passed into history.
America has erred many times and to be brimming with pride when your nation is doing wrong is a terribly inappropriate emotion. The Nazis were very proud until the Russians rolled them back. I don't really believe in karma and I don't imagine we'll suffer in kind what we inflicted on the Nicaraguans, but the waste of our resources and the enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of those less well off which Reagan did effect harmed our nation materially and set the stage for Busch I & II to create even greater inequity within our society. The changes for which Reagan was responsible have impoverished us in many ways and lessened the prospects of generations to come; the harm he did makes any good that could have come about by making people feel an unwarranted pride absolutely inconsequential.
Your last post is all about the majority's uncritical and mistaken perceptions at the time. It is often said that perception is reality in politics, but politics is not history. I am confident that history will and really, despite all the Republicans who still claim him as some sort of role model, already has rendered a very different judgement on his presidency than that of his supporters. You talk about an evanescent feeling people had twenty-some-odd years ago, contrast that with the concrete damage done to the structure of our society and government and the saddling of generations to come with crushing debt. An historian's perspective is a bit more rational. Carter didn't speak at the DNC; so what? All that indicates is that some people's irrational misperceptions persist. Carter may not have achieved much during his term of office, but at least he tried to introduce ethical considerations into our foreign policy. Reagan's legacy is entirely (except for the good feelings you had decades ago) and extremely negative. Reagan looms much larger than Carter in our history, but as a baleful apparition; so too does Adolph Hitler's evil dwarf the positive achievements of his successors, but he will not be remembered as a great leader of Germany and Ronald Reagan will not be considered a great president.
December 17, 2008
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
SOLAR, we don't see eye to eye, and it appears we agree to disagree. That being said, I do appreciate you sharing your opinion on days past we both lived and saw through different eyes. As I said before, I am not one to faithfully follow one party when voting; I always looked to the qualities each candidate places on the table. Politicians, regardless of party, are a wily lot of bedfellows, and it seems we the people always end up with thier fleas. I think you pretty much answered my question; at least you stood by your beliefs. I wish the politicians of both party's had a measure of your honor. Have a great day!
December 17, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Louie: Thanks for trying to pour oil on the roiling waters of my discontent with Reaganites. I too am not solely committed to one party's candidates, it's just worked out that way so far.
December 17, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
jefferson3 writes:
Solar, you're my hero!
December 17, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
solar, I have slept since I last posted on here and have no desire to respond to your rambling. I consider myself very socially liberal, but you seem to almost be advocating socialism, in which the various classes should all be paid the same wage. I see this as nothing more than resentment for those doing better than you.
Out.
December 17, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
I consider it a privilege to serve the citizens of Denver as District Attorney. It is the mission of this office to passionately advocate for victims of crime while respecting the rights of the accused. In doing so, we will achieve justice each day, case by case."
Mitchell R. Morrissey, Denver District Attorney
June 10, 2008
In a case filed by Colorado Ethics Watch, Denver District Court Judge Norman D. Haglund today ordered District Attorney Mitch Morrissey to file by June 23 a written explanation of his reasons for not investigating or prosecuting possible criminal behavior by Colorado State Senator Andy McElhany in 2007.
Under section 16-5-209 of Colorado state law, organizations like Colorado Ethics Watch can petition the court for an order compelling the district attorney to appear before the judge and explain his refusal to prosecute a case. If the judge finds that the district attorney’s failure to prosecute was arbitrary and capricious, or without reasonable excuse, the judge can then order the district attorney to move forward with the prosecution. On June 2, Colorado Ethics Watch filed a petition against District Attorney Mitch Morrissey based on Morrissey's failure to act on Ethics Watch's April 2007 request for an investigation of Senator McElhany.
Judge Haglund's order came in response to Ethics Watch's request that its petition be set for a forthwith hearing. The order denied Ethics Watch's hearing request "without prejudice," meaning that the request could be reconsidered in the future after Morrissey files his written response with the Court.
Yep....give the man a raise!!
December 17, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
EZBakeOven writes:
It's probably not the best time to be giving out such a hefty raise.
December 17, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
That's a huge raise, and doesn't appear appropriate during such difficult times, when other parts of the government are being cut.
December 17, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Iron writes:
Too bad Morrissey doesn't give a crap what the citizens he "serves" think.
December 17, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
arvada_mark writes:
It's more than a 22% increase in pay. That is too much. Maybe he could forego the $32k & hire somebody for that salary to scrub his floors or to drive him around on weekends & holidays. You know, help the city rather than bleed it. And when it's all said & done, his increase will total $62k ("Morrissey is set to get an additional $10,000 each year through 2012."). Let's bump that 22% up to 43%. I don't know what kind of job the guy has done, but a 43% increase in pay is rediculous for anybody in any industry. If I went into my boss' office & asked for a 43% pay increase, he'd laugh. And once he was able to pick himself up off the floor, he'd send me to go get drug tested.
December 17, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
JerryA writes:
You've got to analyze this raise within the context of the whole universe. The real question to ask is what benefits are being realized with the skills that this DA brings to the general public. In addition, what is the true unrealized and uncalculated monetary value that he may be providing the state. For all we know, he may very well have skills and the ability to bring forth the type of change and movement in the legal community to benefit the masses to the degree that it outweighs by far what he is asking to be compensated.
I think we need to take a back seat and ask the leaders to provide a fair and impartial analysis on the benefits that he brings to the community and convert it in a monetary value to understand whether it is justified. We all need to look at the bigger picture.
December 17, 2008
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
JerryA writes:
I just thought of my own situation. In the last 2 years, I was given a salary increase of $20,000. Although I don't make as much as he did, (a little less than $100,000) my progressive increases over the last 2 years has provided for the incentives necessary for me to remain in my position, to continue to be a public servant, to be productive and efficient, and to provide products in my line of work that allow for cost savings of millions of dollars. As I said, increases such as mine and what is being requested by the DA can be justified if the benefits far outweigh the costs. ; )
December 17, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
justiceisblind writes:
gary writes:
I consider it a privilege to serve the citizens of Denver as District Attorney. It is the mission of this office to passionately advocate for victims of crime while respecting the rights of the accused. In doing so, we will achieve justice each day, case by case."
Really??? Is that why you coerced my husband into a plea in October and why the other 2 people involved in the case were never charged with anything after chasing him 11 blocks and assaulting him? Morrissey has no respect for the rights of the accused. If he can coerce someone into a plea, he does it. Funny, that $32,000.00 was my husband's annual income. He's now sitting in a prison cell for something that if anything was nothing but a misdemeanor. Oh, and they took his car and sold it at public auction so they could pocket the money. Mr. Morrissey you are one of the major reasons why all of our prison beds are FULL...and they are FULL RIGHT NOW. Keep putting them away instead of trying to help them stay out. No drugs, no alcohol, no weapons were involved in this, just a couple of stupid punk kids who thought chasing someone in a car and assaulting him was ok. Don't even think it's self-defense to defend yourself...Mr. Morrissey and his minions will put you away for doing just that. As if the Denver cops care enough about you and your property to do anything about it.
December 17, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Bagel: Yes, I am proud to be a socialist like Senator Sanders. Socialism does not imply that all should be paid equally, nor does it imply the resentment of the less able against the more able, nor does it imply totalitarianism; it means government ownership of [some of] the means of production. We acknowledge that there is a vital public interest in various economic endeavors. This is broad definition which encompasses the behavior of most governments including our own. All the decades of right-wing propaganda and Ayn Rand notwithstanding, there are still a few people who have the wit to declare that our government should act in the best economic interest of its citizens, and I'm proud to be one of them! Too bad that you consider yourself a "social liberal" but have such a distorted understanding of socialism itself, one apparently filtered exclusively through the minds of its bitterest opponents. If our country is to survive, it must be through socialism; we must repudiate finally the idiotic propaganda of the Right which claims that society is best served by concentrating the wealth of our nation in the hands of an arbitrary few.
JerryA: Anything can and will be justified by those who lust after wealth and power. Corporate executives succeeded in justifying multi-million dollar salaries to capitalists simply by pointing to the bubble they created in stock values. People are tireless self-justifiers. You yourself are in about the 95th percentile of personal income, so you are falling all over yourself in your obsequious deference to those in authority; they've been good to you: "For all we know, he may very well have skills and the ability to bring forth the type of change and movement in the legal community to benefit the masses to the degree that it outweighs by far what he is asking to be compensated." -- this is just pathetic non-reason! "I think we need to take a back seat and ask the leaders to provide a fair and impartial analysis on the benefits that he brings to the community ..." -- such an analysis should be forthcoming without having to "ask the leaders"! This is just wrong: many of the leaders to which you refer are incompetent and not worthy of trust. In a democracy, a citizen's impulse should be the precise opposite of your own: it is our responsibility to question and become involved in the process of government, NOT "to take a back seat". Failing a clear and irrefutable demonstration of the imagined benefits of paying the DA more than what >95% of Americans earn, we should not give Morrissey this obscene raise. I am satisfied that no such demonstration will or can be made.
I doubt very much that you are worth what you are paid too, or that you are saving anybody millions of dollars; it is just the usual condition of people in your income bracket to be oozing self-righteousness and self-satisfaction, and to seek to justify all the excesses of your own class.
December 17, 2008
12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
"I see this as nothing more than resentment for those doing better than you."
Bagel, I see you're throwing in the towel. I hope you have better arguements in court. Lame closing.
Thanks, Solar.
December 17, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Twostep94 writes:
Even though the DA has not received a raise in 4 years, 22% seems like too large of an increase to make up for that when
1) most Technology Services people have received only 2.25% each of those years
2) most city employees are very likely to be requested to take multiple furlough days in 2009 due to budget issues
Giving the DA such a substantial raise, in light of what else is going on with City finances, seems very irresponsible to me. I do not have any problem with the DA receiving a raise if he has not had one in previous years, but I do believe it should be more in line with the type of raises that the common city employee has received in that time period - especially in tight economic times when you are asking the other employees to tighten their belts and actually receive less pay in the upcoming year.
December 17, 2008
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Hank, your argument about my lame closing is lame. Burn.
Throwing in the towel? I think that requires a concession of defeat. I'm merely stating that solar's views are too radical to be reasoned with and I have no desire to continue.
I don't plan on going to court any time soon, do you think I'm a lawyer for some reason?
December 17, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankReardon writes:
Okay bagel, there's obviously a hole in your statement. When you say things like, "but you seem to almost be advocating socialism, in which the various classes should all be paid the same wage." it shows how little you understand socialism and economics. You are just throwing the 'red-scare-card'.
And I think our founding fathers had ideas similar to Solar's views that are too radical for you to reason with.
All the legal tender in your accounts won't make you better than anyone else. Better hope you can hold on to your wealth because if you ever had to live at my level, you wouldn't survive.
December 17, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
jefferson3 writes:
Methinks Solar's reasoning intimidates bagel and so he calls him a "commie" and too "radical" to try to debate with. Face it, Solar's running away with the win here...
December 17, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Yea Jefferson, man Solar is running away with the win here. Totally
What do we need a job for?
"All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine. "
"People on ludes should not post"
What are people saying about Solar?
"He's the full hot orator."
Who needs capitalism and schooling when We All Live by SPICOLI!!!
December 17, 2008
8:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
JoeTwelvepack writes:
Solar's reasoning is intimidating only in the sense that a crazy guy coming up to you and talking nonsense is intimidating.
No, socialism isn't about everyone being paid the same (clearly this is not the definition of socialism), but Solar's primary problem seems to be that the DA is making too much money (>95% of Americans? OMG!!!1!!!). As a "public servant" the DA has already taken a hefty pay cut by not working in the private sector (the googles should be able to provide proof of this).
> Failing a clear and irrefutable demonstration of the imagined benefits of paying the DA more than what >95% of Americans earn, we should not give Morrissey this obscene raise. I am satisfied that no such demonstration will or can be made.
You're living in a cuckoo clock. Why should he be expected to make the same as a teacher? I know kids these days are a handfull, what with their iPods and their Bratz dolls, but I'm guessing being the DA is slightly more challenging. If you want a clear demonstration of this, I direct you to a series of documentaries entitled Law and Order, Law and Order SVU, and Law and Order: CI. Have you seen the crap those guys put up with? They've more than earned a pay scale in the 95th percentile. And for the record, paying people what The Party thinks they're worth as opposed to what the market will bear is called communism. I'm not pulling the red scare card here, I'm stating a fact.
And if your goal is communism, that's fine. It's certainly a valid form of government, which has worked out great in the past. I wish you the best. I myself, however, will take my copy of Atlas Shrugged and move to the Moon at my first opportunity, and hurl some rocks at you if you try funny stuff.
December 18, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
SICKANDTIRED74 writes:
Oh yes.. the Great USA where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the people who talk a great line of BS painting an image that they are for the people when the are running for office are right there with their hands out for all the can get once they get elected into office!! ABSOLUTELY SICKENING!!!!
December 18, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
COLibertarian: Come on man, I haven't suggested that people drop out of school or smoke pot. While it is true that in this post-industrial age it requires only a small fraction of the population to produce the goods and provide the services that we need, I am not suggesting that people shouldn't work.
I have never studied public speaking or rhetoric but I hope that I have some modest skill at them. The disputes here and between rival politicians are not settled by formal debate; I think more of them should be. Your post is the stylistically polar opposite. Its intent is rather obscure; you address none of the substance of what I have written and instead seem to be trying to draw a comparison between me and a character in a B-movie.
I am not opposed to private enterprise, just corporate oligopoly. Socialism and capitalism can coexist beneficially. We and many other nations have had a mixed economy for a long time; all I am advocating is that the government should be able to act freely for the benefit of the economic commonweal. We need to eschew forming policy on a narrow, right-wing ideological basis and consider such actions on their merits; this is hardly a radical program.
December 18, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Joe: If my reasoning is just nonsense, why bother to repond at all? As I have already stated, there are able people (even lawyers) who are motivated by ideals rather than greed. We need to find such persons and elect them to office. I also pointed out that the DA sets policy and that there is no directly comparable work in the private sector. Having indicated that you understand that socialism does not mean paying all workers the same wage, you turn right around and imply that I think that the DA should be paid the same as a teacher -- I never wrote anything of the kind. Morrissey will be earning more than triple the average teacher salary in Denver; I think he should be content to continue earning more than two such teachers. Obviously I am expressing my own opinion, not that of some political party. "If you want a clear demonstration of this, I direct you to a series of documentaries entitled Law and Order, Law and Order SVU, and Law and Order: CI." -- now you wax ridiculous; these are not documentaries but dramas, works of fiction. You are living in front of a TV screen.
Bagel doesn't know the meaning of the word "socialism", and you don't know the meaning of the word "communism". It is not "a valid form of government" or even an invalid form of government; the term refers to Marx's envisioned utopian end-state of history which he supposed would follow the falling away of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as such its meaning is far closer to that of "anarchy" than "dictatorship". You are misusing the word (as the Right has always done) simply as an epithet. Marxist states do not describe themselves as communist for this reason -- U.S.S.R. stood for "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", China's official title is "The People's Republic of China".
gary and justiceisblind raise another important point: we should be considering whether Morrissey's misconduct of his office merits his employment at all as opposed to whether he should be paid more. It's great that Denver is solving cold cases by means of DNA evidence, but that does not justify nonfeasance or malfeasance on the part of the DA! This obviously isn't even a consideration for the several posters who have defended his proposed raise. Denver seems prone to an unbounded and misplaced trust in its public officials; nothing else can explain the tenure of our alcohol-peddling hypocrite of a mayor.
December 19, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
JoeTwelvepack writes:
> If my reasoning is just nonsense, why bother to repond at all?
Solar, I'm not entirely sure you're familiar with the purpose of the internet. Let me break it down for you. The internet is for: a) porn. b) allowing anonymous blowhards to debate things ad nauseum.
To continue with option b.
> Having indicated that you understand that socialism does not mean paying all workers the same wage, you turn right around and imply that I think that the DA should be paid the same as a teacher -- I never wrote anything of the kind.
I really think you did. You said that he should make what 95% of Americans make. I just picked teacher as an example. I could have picked Janitor, non-union auto worker, or whatever -- it's not important. He makes more because his job is harder and requires significantly more education. I don't see this as being a detriment to his ability to work for the public good, or succumbing to the corporate whatever, I see it as the natural result of capitalism. If we don't pay someone what they're worth, they will go somewhere else. You're arguing that motivations other than money should keep them in their job, and to some extent that will be true, but you have to meet them half way. Being paid 50% (just guessing here) of what your peers make is already making quite a sacrifice.
By the way, if you think the DA (or mayor for that matter) stinks, by all means vote him out and vote in someone you like better, and then they'll be making that money instead.
December 20, 2008
1:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Joe: This is somewhat more reasoned, even amusing. It does not make sense though to say: "You said that he should make what 95% of Americans make" -- Americans earn different amounts; when income is graphed versus the number of people earning that amount, a histogram is formed; the distribution is very roughly normal, with the most people earning values in the middle range of incomes; "what 95% of Americans make" represents a very broad range of incomes. What I indicated was that I didn't think he was worth a salary more than what 95% of other Americans make, i.e. a little more than $100,000.
I do think it is reasonable that better-educated people should command a higher salary: American males with professional degrees earn an average of $100,000 annually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal...): Mr. Morrissey already earns 45% more than that and almost five times the what the average American does. We all know lawyers can earn huge incomes: an American lawyer with twenty years of experience earns an average of $115,265 (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/J...) ; Morrissey already earns almost $30,000 more than that. Depending on who are considered to be his peers, he appears to be earning substantially more, not 50% less than them. I'll stick with my assessment that he is paid too much and his raise is unjustifiable. He spends a fair amount of time in self-promotion, trumpeting Denver's cold case unit and just today claiming to be the scourge of gangs, which is consistent with his reaching for an excessive salary.
I'm all in favor of booting both the Mayor and the DA from office; as I indicated above, we often don't have much of a choice in Denver. Morrissey ran unopposed, so all I could do was not vote for him. It sounds rather naive to say of a politician in Denver: "vote him out and vote in someone you like better" when any number of races go uncontested. Check out the profile of a lawyer who filed an ethics complaint about Mitch Morrissey: http://www.coloradoforethics.org/node... -- she might do better work for less money.
The citizens of Denver need to be much less complacent (if not too say gullible) when it comes to what the authorities do, or fail to do here. There are too many Good Germans here (i.e. those who failed to resist the Nazi rise to power in Germany in the '30s).