A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Durango Herald, Aug. 13, on the need for the U.S. to carefully monitor the quality of imported products:
The underbelly of the Chinese economy is earning a place for itself in world business texts, with unapproved new coal-fired power plants, forced and uncompensated homeowner relocations from both rural and urban settings, and retail products that are made more cheaply and quickly by including harmful ingredients.
The demand for Chinese manufacturing, mostly copies of Western prototypes done at low, low cost, have Chinese factories operating at high capacity. Quality inspectors are too few in number and subject to bribery, while at all levels of management it is too easy for those in charge to look the other way in the interest of making a profitable sale.
The shoddy manufacturing not only applies to goods for export. The few news reports available suggest that Chinese consumers, as well as those overseas, could be harmed by grossly improper product ingredients and poor construction. Bad automobile tires and automobiles that will not come close to passing international safety tests have joined chemical-laden pet food and lead-paint covered children’s toys (one reason for using lead-based paint is that it dries faster when humidity is high).
According to one report, 80 percent of toys sold in the U.S. are made in China. The largest toy companies, well-known Mattel with its Fisher-Price and Sesame Street lines, and Hasbro Inc., have had to deal with the discovery of dangerous products.
U.S. and European manufacturers are being considered to pick up some of the shortfall as Chinese orders are rejected.
Should poor Chinese quality have come as a surprise? No. With cheap labor, opportunities for wealth far beyond what communism made possible and no history of manufacturing controls—and plenty of graft—China has been able to step up to quickly manufacture billions of dollars of products for the world markets. Cheap prices have trampled a lot of what humanity holds dear.
If China cannot maintain product quality in the workplace, American importers will have to call attention to it for them and return what is not up to what we know are reasonable standards. If non-Chinese journalists have a difficult time reporting on the issue in China—and they do—the stories will be told outside China. Expect more inspections on U.S. soil and more negative publicity. That will be noticed.
Over time, China will put quality controls in place in order to continue to enjoy all that strong exports mean to its economy. But in the meantime, overseas suppliers and retailers are going to have to step up their inspections and then make plenty of noise when deficient shipments are discovered. Their reputations demand it. Should the U.S. government be involved? Perhaps. Americans are living better not because wages and salaries have increased that much, but because goods are so much cheaper than they have been. It may require a combined U.S. supplier-federal effort to put in place the thorough screenings that will be necessary until Chinese product safety improves.
Agricultural crops leaving and entering this country are inspected. Those safeguards need to be expanded, paid for by industry.
Editorial:
———
The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., Aug. 11, on congressional rules for earmarks:
Stung by accusations that they burst from the starting gate like a bunch of Clydesdales, and terrified of going back to constituents during the August recess with so little to show for themselves, Democrats scrambled in the hours before adjournment to get something accomplished. One of those 11th-hour bills granted the executive branch significant new latitude to eavesdrop on Americans. The second “accomplishment” was an “ethics reform bill.”
The ethics measure had two parts: rules changes addressing lobbying abuses and rules changes aimed at curtailing earmarks. Neither lobbyists nor earmarks are disappearing as a result. Especially disappointing, however, was the earmark-related portion of the bill.
Earmarks are parochial spending items slipped into appropriations bills for the narrow benefit of a politician’s constituents. Typically, they aren’t subject to congressional hearings, aren’t competitively awarded and aren’t part of the executive branch’s, or other chamber’s, budget requests. The money is awarded based on the political clout of members, rather than merit—which is why earmarks frequently result in a misuse of federal funds. The explosion in earmarking has been linked to the proliferation of lobbyists.
Democrats promised they were going to run a tighter ship when they took charge, but pigging out on pork has always been a bipartisan affair, so we were skeptical. The House in January began requiring members to identify their earmarks. It was hoped this would shame them into showing restraint. But the flaw in this thinking was obvious—members of Congress have no shame.
The New York Times reported recently that the new rules backfired, by turning earmarking into a competitive sport. As a result, almost 6,500 of them, worth almost $11 billion, have so far been added to next year’s spending bills.
The rules approved before recess mark a retreat on earmark reform, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. A back-room “compromise” negotiated by House and Senate leaders removed one rule that would have blocked consideration of any bill unless the earmarks are disclosed in advance. A requirement that Congress establish a searchable database of earmarks was also watered down, by adding a two-word caveat, “if practicable.”
Finally, and most egregiously, the new rules give the Senate majority leader and committee chairman the power to certify whether the new earmarking rules are being followed—which amounts to letting the foxes guard the hen house. “In many cases, these are the very people responsible for the glut of earmarks in the first place,” CAGW points out. “House and Senate Democrats conjured up a deal that benefits only the powerful appropriators and the special interests that game the system at the expense of average Americans,” CAGW president Tom Schatz says. Meet the new bosses, same as the old bosses. Maybe worse.
Newspaper:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
The Pueblo Chieftain, Aug. 12, on the Army’s proposed Pinon Canyon expansion:
Sen. Ken Salazar is understandably of two minds when it comes to the Army’s proposal to greatly expand Fort Carson’s Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in Southeastern Colorado.
As a true patriot, he supports the military’s mission to protect the American people from foreign foes. And as a rural Coloradan by birth, he supports the ranchers and the townsfolk of all the communities in Southeastern Colorado whose livelihoods depend on the land.
It’s a dichotomy which we also have faced in considering the proposal.
During an interview last week, the Colorado Democrat said, “I will not allow any expansion to take place that robs the heritage and economic vitality of Southeastern Colorado.” The Army has said it wants to add 414,000 acres to the 238,000 acres in the existing maneuver site.
The Base Realignment and Closure Commission, or BRAC, recommended closing Fort Hood, Texas, and moving its five brigades, each with about 3,500 troops, to Fort Carson. Last week, Maj. Gen. Robert Mixon, outgoing commander of the Mountain Post, demonstrated to a Pueblo audience why the Army thinks it can justify expansion of Pinon Canyon.
He overlaid a to-scale map of Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon over a map of Iraq to show the vast distance soldiers are covering in that country. The Army also has said it will use Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon to train all Army Reserves and Army National Guard troops based west of the Mississippi.
Nevertheless, the economic consequences for Southeastern Colorado—including Pueblo—are at stake. Ranchers in the region constitute a primary industry, one which generates income from outside the area.
That money helps keep the towns in the region economically viable. This, in turn, helps Pueblo’s economy, which serves as a regional medical, retail and social anchor.
So, like Sen. Salazar, we are mindful of the economic consequences that need to be addressed by the Pentagon. The Department of Defense must be willing to guarantee it can enhance the economy of the region if it is going to take large swaths of land out of production.
Sen. Salazar wants to know if the Army can acquire the land it wants from willing sellers. “I don’t think they need to be using condemnation,” he said. We believe this should be a key provision of any final agreement.
We urge Sen. Salazar and Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., to support a one-year moratorium on funding for expansion activities that was sponsored by Reps. John Salazar, D-Colo., and Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., and approved overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives. We need additional time to get some more answers before proceeding.
Many of the ranching families have been on their land for three or four generations. They, and everyone else in Southeastern Colorado, should be held harmless by the Army.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo., Aug. 10, on water leaders across the state cooperating to keep water flowing in the Colorado:
In a state known for its constant battles over water—oftentimes featuring the East Slope and West Slope in pitched political combat—it is refreshing to see water leaders from both sides of the Continental Divide work together to overcome a temporary problem.
That has occurred this summer following the closure of Xcel Energy’s Shoshone power plant in Glenwood Canyon. An agreement announced recently is aimed at ensuring there is enough water in the Colorado River for irrigators, endangered fish and recreation.
Because the Shoshone plant’s 1905 right for 1,250 cubic feet per second is one of the most senior water rights on the river, Xcel’s plant keeps water flowing out of high-country reservoirs and through the lower part of the Colorado River in the late summer and early fall, when natural flows are typically very low. Well, at least it does when the plant is operational and Colorado River water is the driving force behind the facility’s hydroelectric turbines.
But with the plant temporarily out of service, there were fears that water-rights holders upstream that were junior to the Shoshone plant but senior to—let’s say, an orchard owner’s water rights in Palisade—could place a call on the river and substantially dewater downstream parts of the Colorado.
The agreement announced Wednesday calls for the release of water from reservoirs that benefit both the Front Range and the Western Slope. The releases will provide for 1,200 cfs to run through Glenwood Canyon through Labor Day, providing sufficient water for recreational users, and up to 810 cfs through October through the Grand Valley. That 15-mile stretch is designated critical river habitat for endangered fish, and irrigation diversions here through October could mean too little water for the endangered fish without the supplement.
The participants in the agreement amount to a who’s-who of Colorado water entities: Denver Water, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Colorado Springs Utilities on the Front Range; the Colorado River Water Conservation District and most of the irrigation organizations in the Grand Valley on the Western Slope. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Colorado Division of Water Resources also participated.
They all deserve credit for their cooperative efforts to make sure there is adequate water in the Colorado River this year.
Editorial: Shoshoni—edit.html
