Vectra Bank's forecast counters local good vibe

I walked into Vectra Bank Colorado's economic forecast breakfast Wednesday and quickly ran into the always optimistic Tim Jackson. President/CEO of the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, Jackson bubbled about a 13.7 percent sales increase for his industry in November, and said he hoped that Colorado dealers would finish the year posting a full 14 percent gain for 2011.

Jackson then introduced me to Andy Rogers, general manager of the Ritz-Carlton Denver, who said December was the best month of the year for the downtown luxury hotel, and he agreed with Jackson's ebullience over how Colorado's economy seemed to be picking up.

Then I sat down to listen to Vectra's speakers for the day:

• Patty Silverstein, who delivered the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's and Metro Denver Economic Development Corp.'s 2012 economic forecast;
• Mark Snead, vice president and economist at the Denver Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City; and,
• George Feiger, CEO of an investment firm in San Francisco, a past member of the Vectra Bank board of directors, and a frequent commentator on Bloomberg News, Fox Business News and in the Wall Street Journal.

Man, what a downer!

Silverstein told the crowd in the Seawall Ballroom at the Denver Center for Performing Arts that 2012 was a time for Colorado and metro Denver to "rebuild," but that the rebuilding will be "slow" because consumers are still being frugal; jobs will grow only about 1.1 percent both nationally and locally, leaving 123,000 people in metro Denver still looking desperately for work; "wages have been growing relatively slowly" in the region; and home prices may get boosted 3 percent at most during the year.

Snead, of the Denver office of the Fed, told the 400 business people: "It could be worse, it could be a lot worse. You could be in Greece."

And then he pointed out that Greece and the United States "have just about the same amount of debt."

The U.S., of course, is better equipped to handle that debt, Snead said. It is much bigger, and most of its population isn't drinking ouzo out on the beach. But still the comparison can be made; and, in general, Snead kept repeating, the U.S. and world economies during 2012 will mostly be "bottoming, not accelerating."

And then, with coffee in the room growing cold, Feiger took the lectern and told everybody the euro zone would definitely fail before it got better; China is actually in worse shape than its Communist leaders will ever let on; at least the U.S. is "the least bad place to be" in the world today; and nothing about what he was telling all the business leaders, who are generally paid to be optimistic about the outlooks for their firms, was funny.

"It's very far from funny," Feiger added.

No one was laughing as everybody headed for the doors.

New journalism: partisan but professional

My headline ought to get some of my journalistic colleagues' juices flowing, but according to a writer in The Atlantic's January/February issue, American journalists are going to have to make some accommodation with the concept.

In fact, I'm making an accommodation to the notion with this ongoing blog. I'm writing about small business and politics from a very liberal perspective. And I hope to attract advertisers to my readership.

Paul Starr, a professor at Princeton, wrote the Atlantic piece. In "Governing in the Age of Fox News," Starr states toward the end: "Although most American journalists assume that professionalism and partisanship are inherently incompatible, that is not necessarily so. Partisan media can, and in some countries do, observe professional standards in their presentation of the news."

I have always questioned the journalistic principle of so-called "objectivity" in news coverage because I know as a writer the way you put words to paper (or on a screen) is inherently subjective. What nouns you use, what adjectives are colored by the writer's choice of words.

There's no escaping the tinge except by the samurai editor's butchering sword.

Unfortunately, quality of writing often slides away with the fat of a trim; occassionally, however, the cuts can actually make the writing better.

I take my journalistic principles and professionalism to the writing of this blog. I mean for my profiles of small businesses to carry the good and the bad about a firm, although my advocacy for small business will emphasize the good over the bad in most cases. And I will always give a business owner the benefit of the doubt.

I will not, however, give business as a community a pass when it comes to the harsher side of issues. Colorado's current debate over the elimination of tax exemptions for business is an example.

The tax exemptions should be removed in an attempt to balance two state budgets (fiscal 2010 and 2011) despite any damage to the state's reputation as "business friendly." A "people friendly" business community will recognize it must contribute to fiscal austerity that requires Colorado to reduce services to all its citizens.

At the same time, legislators should not forget that business owners are citizens, too, and already share as much as anyone else in the general pain.

Tax exemptions can be restored as well as removed.

If the state would correct its budgeting problems, if it can regain some economic steam, and refuel its revenue streams, exemptions and incentives can be given back as easily as they can be taken away.

Business and the business lobby knows that. They should begin working for the common good rather than their own self-interest.

Going to the brink and back, and not learning the lesson

Tuesday morning I posted to my Facebook friends a link to an excerpt from Andrew Ross Sorkin's new book "Too Big to Fail: How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System -- and Themselves." I hadn't yet read the piece, but judging from an interview Sorkin gave to Charlie Rose on Monday night about his book, I had thought the excerpt might shed some light on the recent attacks of Big Business on the Obama administration.

(Photo credit: foxbookshop.indiebound.com)

Rose mentioned the assault himself. Big-bank lobbyists are teaming up to oppose new regulations for the financial industry that Obama has proposed to reduce the chances our nation might once again step to the brink of a Great Depression 2.0, as it did a year ago.

Also, last week, the health-insurance industry finally let drop it's opposition to any health-care reform by lying about the prospect for higher health-insurance premiums if currently proposed reforms go through. To my mind, the industry's contention only strengthens the argument that a public option must be included in any health-reform package. The insurance companies, after all, would be the people raising the rates!

A public option, offering lower rates, would compete against those very companies, and keep them from raising the rates if they wanted to keep their current customers.

Then on Tuesday, too, The Wasington Post, reported the White House was trying to sidestep opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, big businesses' highest paid lobbyist. The U.S. Chamber is bucking up against the administration on several fronts: health care, global warming and financial regulation.

To get around them, administration officials are visiting with individual CEOs over their company's positions on such issues; and several big firms, Apple Inc. in particular, have dropped out of the chamber because of its harsh opposition to administrative iniatives.

Did anyone really believe big business would turn the other cheek in these battles with a centrist/liberal administration that still holds majority support among voters?

"People" are beneficiaries of all the Obama initiatives, and that's what big business and some small businesses are opposed to.

You cannot save the middle class and the poor in this country, without taking something from the establishment and the rich. It's time the rich gave back what they, in cahoots with a free-market government, have slowly, inexorably taken away.

Sorkin's excerpt doesn't give much of a clue to any of this, but he indicated to Rose that the word "Themselves," in his subtitle suggests one of the most disturbing things he found in writing the tome. Wall Street is a club of rich people who also serve in government, and their actions in both arenas are taken with their own self-interest top of mind -- or at least as top-of-mind as the greater good of all Americans, which undeniably also remains one of their motives.