Give Us the Facts?

The City of Boulder moves steadily forward with its plan to municipalize the electrical power grid in Boulder, buying our the Xcel infrastructure of wires, transformers, substations, poles, underground facilities, etc. The purchase cost to the City will run into hundreds of millions of dollars. The City will need to create a power commission and department to take over the duties of expansion and maintenance of the grid. They will need to respond to emergency power outages and other problems.

Some the funding for the purchase will be provided by selling bonds. Bonds require interest payments, and these payments will be borne by those who purchase power from the City (i.e., you and me.)

I continue to believe that Boulder's plan for municipalization of Xcel's franchise is a serious mistake. Part of that belief stems from the City's failure to provide any hard facts about the issue. We have been given nothing in the way of financial analysis, operating plans, staffing plans, or rate estimates. Does the Council have the data? It seems that if they do, and it supports justification of the municipalization project,they would tell us about it. We have many, many good thinkers in Boulder. Let us have facts.

The Boulder Daily Camera has frequent letters-to-the-editor, editorials or op-ed pieces. Some favor municipalization, others do not. It is an interesting, uninformed debate!

Give us the fact, Boulder City Council. We can think for ourselves.

Dialog versus Argument

Dialog, in its pure sense, means conversation among people who listen carefully to others in order to understand their values (from which beliefs spring), so that together they can develop solutions to difficult problems.

For example, first and foremost, some people value the enjoyment of their work more than they value the creation of wealth. Others, on the other hand, value creating wealth more than the enjoyment of their work. Most people lie somewhere on the continuum, enjoyment on one end and wealth on the other. Others, lie on the extremes of the continuum. These are the extremist.

From values grow our beliefs about working. You believe in working long, hard hours, while I believe in working less. We both feel we are right.

Now, if we have an argument about getting work done in a certain amount of time, we have difficulty creating a solution to the issue. In our argument we take positions based on our beliefs. Once positions are taken, creating a solution to the issue meets with great difficulty. I think I am right and you are wrong, and vice versa.

The argument, from positions, is not a dialog. In this argument we probably flare up in anger, and call each other names. Working out a win/win solution is impossible, so we compromise on a lose/lose solution.

If, instead of having an argument we have a dialog, in which we listen carefully to understand each other's values, we can usually create a win/win solution that satisfies our values.

For many years I have worked as an intermediary in business mergers and acquisitions. Frequently the buyers and sellers take opposing positions; positions based on their beliefs. It falls to me to move the parties to dialog; to listening to each other to understand values; and to develop win/win solutions.

Now that is fun.

No more politics

A few of my readers have said to me that they read enough, or too much, about politics as it is, and don't want to read more about them from me.

So, read my lips, "NO MORE POLITICS."

Ungovernable?

Sometimes I believe our country is ungovernable. Political parties are so wacky (all three, Democrat, Republican and Tea) and so rigid in their positions that true dialog leading to true solutions no longer seems possible

And with a chief executive who apparently has gone wishy-washy, leadership seems to have died.

Once again our government has put a band-aid on the fiscal policy of the United States.

What do we the citizens need to do to get long term solutions to these serious problems?

As an idealist, I suggest firing congress and the executive, and firing the lobbyists, and firing the special interest groups, and starting all over.

Oh well.

Pragmatists, as well are as others, are invited to comment.

More on Fuel Taxes

In an earlier post I proposed a three part tax to replace slowly diminishing fuel tax collections. The critical piece of the concept is the mileage tax. Both calculating the tax and collecting it challenge us with problems of privacy, accuracy, cost and enforceability.

Because of the privacy issue an onboard system of measuring mileage, by state, and computing the amount of tax due to each state requires combining GPS technology with an small computer. Sending the collected information to tax collecting facilities requires including a low power transmitter. Mass produced these devices will not cost a prohibitive amount – probably well under $100.

By keeping the data on the vehicle until the tax is paid, and erasing it at that time, eliminates the worry of many people that a large state or federal database of mileage and location information would be subject to many prying eyes.

At specific tax collection facilities the data gathering and computing device transmits the data so, one way or another, the tax can be collected. Stations could be specific to tax collection, or service stations, or even grocery or convenience stores. If the vehicle does not use any of the collection facilities the authority issuing the registration for the vehicle can collect the tax. If no taxes are due the taxing authority will have the information and no tax would be added to the registration fee.

Obviously, cost of the various devices needs thorough study, measuring one system against another. In addition, the concept requires research to determine the tax rates used for the various states. Other components of the three part tax structure, presented in an earlier post, also need research.

Implementation of the concept will take several years. Eventually the taxing concept will replace the current gasoline/diesel fuel tax.

Your comments are always appreciated.

Upheaval in the Auto Industry

My daughter called me this morning upset because President Obama’s administration, and the President himself, had forced Rick Waggoner to resign as Chairman of General Motors, and is forcing Chrysler to combine in some way with Fiat, as conditions of funding the bailout requests of the two companies.

It is easy to see her point – how can the federal government dare make decisions normally left to Boards of Directors. Do they even have the right?

It is also easy to see the other side of the question – the side I come down on.

Banks with loans to failing companies often refuse additional loans, or cancel existing ones, until the company shows evidence it can repay them. Often banks will tell Directors to hire a turnaround team to fix the problems. With the prospect of failure in sight, most companies do as the banks request. This seems exactly the situation with GM and Chrysler.

As I read in the papers, neither GM or Chrysler has developed a suitable business plan for fixing their troubles.

Now is the time.

Now they are saying to either make the changes or accept the consequences. The administration has ignited a fire under the managements both companies.

The Gasoline Tax Dilemma

A look into the future shows an alarming dilemma in the way our country funds its highway construction and maintenance costs.

The largest funding source for highways is the gasoline and diesel fuel tax. The essence of the future problem is that the fuel tax, over the next twenty years, will decline as vehicles use less gasoline and diesel because of better fuel efficiency and/or the switch to hybrid or electric power sources. As we green our planet, we, in fact, will run out of adequate highway funds.

Starting some six weeks ago, a plan has bubbled around in my head and finally has enough body to it to post it here. Concept only is described. Omitted are the details – I am seeking funding to fully research the concept and its many ramifications and do not want to divulge too many details. And there are many!

The tax plan has three parts:

· A tax that will encourage resource conservation

· A tax that will discourage the use of petroleum based fuels

· A tax that will discourage miles driven

Regarding the last of the three, there has been much written about measuring mileage driven using GPS technology. This rightly causes invasion of privacy concerns, because time and location data from the GPS could be inappropriately used.

In the Schaul concept (clever, creative name) is a system for measuring mileage and collecting a mileage-based tax that does not depend on GPS technology, does not invade privacy, and seems reasonably easy to collect. This may be the greatest value of the concept.

The various parts of the three tax bases adjust easily to replace the amount of fuel tax now collected, and as the fuel tax declines, can continually adjust to keep revenue at a level necessary to maintain our highways and bridges.

There are competing realities here. First, no one wants to pay taxes or add complication to the way they are calculated and collected. Second, the highway infrastructure will gradually wear out if we do not continue to improve it as population grows, and maintain it as wear and tear takes its toll. Making the taxes realistic and based on measurable factors, with easy collection systems seems a good way to proceed.

Your comments are always welcome.