A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers: NATIONAL: The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., March 23, on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: Consider us biased: we thought it was unwise, and smacked of cronyism, for the president to tap his former personal lawyer from Texas and former White House counsel to serve as U.S. attorney general in the first place. But if the president is now going to dump Alberto Gonzales, as many media reports keep hinting, or if Gonzales is going to spare President Bush the trouble by resigning, it should be done for the right reasons. The recent flap over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys is not the right reason.
Gonzales is undoubtedly a decent person with a compelling personal history. But he seemed out of his depth as White House counsel and attorney general, supporting interpretations of law that undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances by vesting too much power in the executive branch.
The firings that precipitated the current crisis are much ado about nothing, really. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, rather than for fixed terms. And like all political appointees, they can be (and frequently are) replaced at the president’s discretion. Congressional Democrats are well aware of this, but have seized on the issue to score political points. Where Gonzales and other senior administration officials can be faulted is in their failure to be candid about their motives for doing so, which made it seem like something more sinister than it was.
But this case merely scratches the surface of Gonzales’ unsuitability for the position he holds. More damning is the role he played in searching out legal justifications for coercive interrogations and his belief that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al-Qaida members and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He also was an active promoter of the program of warrantless surveillance of U.S. residents (presumably in contact with foreigners suspected of having connections to terrorist organizations) that seems to violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And it was on his watch that the FBI mishandled a troubling number of National Security Letters that authorize surveillance without judicial oversight.
Informing all these actions and decisions is an overly-expansive view of presidential powers, which essentially argues that a chief executive can do anything in a time of war or national emergency.
This position helps explain why he has such a strong supporter in Bush.
Gonzales has consistently sought to enhance executive power, pushing it into questionable realms such as near-torture and wiretapping Americans without a warrant, in service to a view of presidential wartime power that is almost absolute. To be sure, he has done this at the behest of the president. But an attorney general serves his boss and his country poorly if he isn’t independent enough to say so when the person sitting in the Oval Office begins treading too heavily on civil liberties and the Constitution.
And that – and not this silly sideshow about fired U.S.
attorneys – is why it’s time for Gonzales to go.
Newspaper: — The Denver Post, March 23, on Sen. John Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth: Elizabeth Edwards set a heroic example for the country Thursday when, with her characteristic smile, she announced that she has incurable cancer but will continue to help her husband campaign for president.
“The campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly,” a more somber John Edwards said at a Thursday news conference in Chapel Hill, N.C., before the pair left for New York to raise campaign funds.
It’s astonishing that in the face of such challenges, the couple could decide not to “cower in the corner,” but rather exude a positive attitude and together pursue their goal: the presidency of the United States. We wish them well.
Edwards is among the top three Democratic contenders, along with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and is off to a strong start in Iowa, site of the first 2008 caucus.
The nation first met Mrs. Edwards, 57, during the 2004 presidential election, when her husband was John Kerry’s running mate. A lawyer, she was smart, gregarious and motherly all at once.
It was at the end of that campaign that John Edwards announced his wife had invasive ductal cancer and would undergo treatment.
The Edwards have three children. Another child, 16-year-old son Wade, was killed in a 1996 car accident.
Mrs. Edwards’ cancer was believed to be in remission until she cracked a rib on her left side recently, went in for a checkup and doctors discovered the cancer on a right rib. Because it had moved from her breast to her bone, the couple said it was no longer curable but treatable. Edwards said that while he will continue his presidential bid, “Any time, any place I need to be with Elizabeth I will be there – period.” Even while the Edwards put their best face forward, Dr. Lisa Carey, the oncologist treating Mrs. Edwards, indicated small suspicious spots elsewhere, “possibly involving the lung.” Carey said they were awaiting the results of other tests within the next two weeks. She declined to give a prognosis, saying survival depends on how widespread the cancer is. Mrs. Edwards described her upcoming treatment as a “less debilitating kind of chemotherapy.” White House spokesman Tony Snow, who himself has battled cancer, called Elizabeth Edwards a “powerful example for a lot of people – and a good and positive one.” In the future, when we contemplate Americans who exhibited strength in the face of adversity, we’ll think of Elizabeth Edwards. “We’re always going to look for the silver lining – it’s who we are as people,” she said. We wish the best for her.
Editorial: — STATE/REGIONAL: Fort Collins Coloradoan, March 23, on maintaining public accountability in Colorado’s growing renewable energy industry: State lawmakers must be sure, in their rush to remain competitive by developing a Clean Energy Development Authority, that Colorado taxpayers are part of the process.
House Bill 1150, already approved by the State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee and headed to the Senate floor, would allow the new authority to issue bonds for solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal renewable resources, according to The Associated Press. Sen. Ken Kester, R-Las Animas, told the AP that the authority could provide almost unlimited funds for renewable energy projects.
In a state blessed with potential for renewable energy projects, such funding is needed. And with other states, including Wyoming, ahead of the renewable energy curve, Colorado needs an infusion of cash to become competitive in the growing industry.
But lawmakers also have to apply the brakes here amid such giddy support for renewable energy and ask some tough questions. Revenue from the funded projects would be used to pay back the bonds.
However, if the state is backing the tax-free bonds, will taxpayers be left holding the bag if some projects fail? Lawmakers must match a vision for the future with taxpayer expectations. Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, told the AP that the bonding authority will list specific projects prior to seeking funding. Essentially, it is up to the Legislature to make sure that not only the concept of a bonding authority for renewable energy projects is accountable, but also that the projects themselves are viable.
The sunshine of public oversight will be as essential as the solar opportunities. Have lawmakers assured themselves that the authority will operate transparently to assure public accountability? Renewable energy is the route to energy independence from the Middle East; it is an environmentally responsible approach; and, eventually, clean energy should become the most affordable option for consumers. But if renewable energy is to be the centerpiece of an economic boost for Colorado, as Gov. Ritter intends, lawmakers must ensure this authority leads to a favorable return on investment for Coloradans rather than a burden of debt.
Editorial: N01/7032 30318/1014/CUSTOMERSERVICE02 — Rocky Mountain News, March 22, on the potential return of the failed no-fault auto insurance system: If you’ve been driving in Colorado for any length of time, you’ll remember that the state’s gold-plated “no-fault” auto insurance system was so badly broken that the legislature finally let it die in July 2003. Since then, drivers have experienced lower average premiums and increased competition, reversing the soaring costs of no-fault’s last years. Complaints are down, and even the percentage of uninsured drivers has fallen now that premiums are more affordable.
All good. Alas, the legislature might yet consider bringing back the same kind of expensive medical mandates that ultimately made no-fault unworkable in Colorado – and without any of its benefits.
Senate Bill 193 was scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 23, and would have required that auto insurers offer coverage for $50,000 in medical payments and rehabilitation.
The sponsor, Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, pulled it off the table March 21, but vowed she would reintroduce it after fixing some technical issues and reducing the $50,000 requirement to some degree.
As it is, customers who want to buy this additional coverage can already choose to do so, and about 30 percent do. But typically they buy around $5,000 worth of coverage, enough to handle co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses that aren’t covered by their health insurance.
Coverage of many times that amount is necessary for virtually nobody, and because it will be expensive, it will probably be rejected by precisely the group most likely to need it, those without health insurance and with limited financial resources.
Let us remind legislators of what went wrong with “personal injury protection” under no-fault. First, it was a huge pot of money; $130,000 in coverage. And no-fault notwithstanding, once someone who was injured had medical bills of $2,500 or more – not a difficult threshold to meet these days – he could sue anyway for “pain and suffering.” Second, the kind of services auto insurers were required to pay for were far broader than under most health insurance plans.
Companies had to pay for various kinds of alternative and complementary medicine, some of them of dubious medical value, and in some egregious cases for items such as fish tanks and hot tubs.
Yes, watching fish swim may be soothing; that’s why tanks often burble away in doctors’ offices. But your health insurance won’t buy you a fish tank.
Third, auto insurers have less scope to manage costs than health insurers do.
One company executive reported spending $14,000 for one patient’s night in an emergency room, while the amount charged to a health insurer would be $1,200.
Auto insurance was not designed to be a bill-paying operation.
Its function is to protect car owners from liability in case of an accident, so they don’t lose their homes, their retirement savings and everything else they have.
Only 12 states require some kind of medical-payments coverage, and the average amount required is less than $7,000.
Colorado doesn’t need to go back to the era of lavish benefits and the onerous premiums it took to pay for them.
Editorial: -23964-5 433688,00.html
