A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, Dec. 10, on the subprime mortgage crisis:
President George W. Bush has made it clear he doesn’t think federal taxpayers should have to foot the bill to bail out lenders and borrowers in the subprime mortgage crisis.
Bully for him.
But when it comes to taxpayers at the state and municipal level—who also happen to be federal taxpayers—well, that’s a different matter.
The plan Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson will reportedly present to Congress would allow cities and states to issue tax-exempt bonds to pay off failing mortgages and offer lower-rate mortgages to residents.
In other words, taxpayers in those cities and states would pay to absolve mortgage companies and their investors of financial liability for bad loans they made. And those same taxpayers—many of whom have worked hard to keep from defaulting on their own mortgages—would be on the hook if other borrowers can’t cover their mortgages even at the reduced interest rates the cities and states offer. Some of those other borrowers are real-estate speculators who pocketed tens of thousands of dollars by repeatedly flipping homes when the real-estate market was booming.
Bush also announced plans last week to aid borrowers by seeking a five-year freeze in interest-rate hikes for some adjustable rate mortgages. That plan is also problematic.
For one thing, the government cannot force lenders to overturn legally written contracts that have already been signed with borrowers. Bush can only request that they freeze rates.
Furthermore, the plan will only cover several hundred thousand borrowers. But an estimated 1.4 million are facing potential foreclosure as their ARM rates rise and their monthly mortgage payments increase.
Additionally, both parts of the Bush plan will help keep real-estate prices artificially high in markets where they otherwise could be falling, thus penalizing potential new homeowners who might be able to purchase homes if prices drop.
Bush’s proposal might help him and other Republicans appear to be as compassionate as leading Democrats when it comes to troubled borrowers. But it plays havoc with the housing market, protects private investors from their bad decisions and could put billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money at risk. It just won’t be federal tax money.
Editorial: 7—4A—mortgage—edit.html
———
The Durango Herald, Dec. 6, on Iran’s weapons program:
After stirring up substantial unrest and instability in Iraq, the Bush administration has more recently set its sights on Iran—a country that has been accused of actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability as well as wielding influence over Shia leaders in Iraq. While the latter suspicion may carry water, the former, as it turns out in a new National Intelligence Estimate, does not. What led to the revision, and what has followed, is disappointingly devoid of surprises.
On Dec. 3, the intelligence estimate—a compilation of findings from the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. spy community—backpedaled significantly from a 2005 report that alleged Iran was hard at work trying to develop nuclear weapons technology. In fact, the recent report announced that not only was that earlier conclusion flawed, but that Iran had abandoned any such efforts four years ago—well before Bush and his administration began rattling their sabers about Iranian nuclear ambitions.
That the recent intelligence estimate makes its case “with high confidence,” just as it did in 2005 does raise the question of when “high confidence” is sufficient to evoke trust in a report’s content. After all, initial analyses of Iraq’s work on its infamous weapons of mass destruction were put forth with similar assuredness. For Bush, “high confidence” in a country’s bad behavior is sufficient for action, but the reverse is not true.
Not surprisingly, the president’s reaction to the intelligence report has yet to include the mea culpa that it might have provoked. Instead, Bush and other administration leaders have attempted to spin the report as proof that Iran must be considered a threat and pressured accordingly. Bush has gone so far as to demand that Iran’s leaders reveal what their intentions and activities were prior to 2003—a weak attempt to maintain the scrutiny applied to Iran.
The president would be better served by embracing one of the report’s most positive elements: the assertion that “Iran halted the (nuclear weapons) program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure.” This claim should give Bush reason to celebrate a foreign policy endeavor well done—and he has precious few of these. But overlooking that information and redoubling the administration’s focus on the threat Iran poses suggests that Bush would rather be right than successful. That is hardly the philosophy needed to quell tensions in any setting. Nor does it entice other countries—allies or otherwise—to embrace the U.S. position.
Perhaps the best consequence of the briefing is what it might have prevented. Unlike the inquiry into the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons program, which came after military action had begun, the revised opinion on Iran’s nuclear aspirations arrived before heated rhetoric could transition into action. It also suggests the path for curbing any future Iranian appetite for renewing the country’s nuclear weapons efforts. The report explicitly maps this path as requiring incentives as well as negative reinforcement: “some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressure, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.”
Bush seems to have embraced the first clause of the recommendation, but thus far has neglected to read beyond it.
Editorial: n&article—path/opinion/opin071206—1.htm
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
The Pueblo Chieftain, Dec. 10, on truancy and dropouts in Colorado:
On the same day that the state’s school report cards were released last week, Gov. Bill Ritter announced a series of reforms he hopes will cut the high school dropout rate around Colorado.
The initiatives include more full-day kindergarten classes, eliminating the waiting list for the state’s preschool program and hiring more counselors to help older students plan ahead for college or the work force.
While noting that the number of schools being given ratings of excellent had grown to 11.8 percent for 2006 from the 8 percent of the previous year, he said that’s not good enough statewide. “Our education system is in need of reform,” he said, echoing the sentiments of predecessor Governors Roy Romer and Bill Owens.
During an education summit last week, Pueblo District Judge Dennis Maes and Terry Martinez-McGraw talked about their efforts to stem truancy, which often leads to dropping out of school. Stemming truancy needs to be a community-wide effort, one which local schools and the judge have adopted.
There are many routes to school reform. The governor has chosen some of the recommendations from his P-20 Commission, co-chaired by Colorado State University-Pueblo President Joe Garcia.
We’re sure to see more come out of that initiative in the coming weeks and months.
Editorial:
———
Camera, Boulder, Colo., Dec. 6, by Erika Stutzman, for the editorial board, on the recent CU settlement in the Title IX lawsuit:
University of Colorado’s Wednesday morning announcement that it would settle a Title IX lawsuit was greeted with much of the same scorching reaction that accompanied the initial lawsuit.
Anger and vitriol flying in all directions, but mainly targeting the lead plaintiff in the case. Complaints about the legal system. Frustration that what once—long ago—appeared to be a she-said, they-said case became so complicated and so expensive.
Fury that such an esteemed university—and one that does so much good—was being sullied by its reputation for out-of-control parties; a place where either alcohol-fueled gang rapes, or the accusations of them, would be swept under a rug.
But what the Title IX case was—and now that CU has chosen to settle it, we’re happy to use the past-tense—was not about the lead plaintiff. It wasn’t about one off-campus party in December 2001, and two accusers.
It was about the university’s culture as a whole. And what kind of environment it was willing to support and even foster.
The university says it will pay $2.5 million to plaintiff Lisa Simpson and $350,000 to plaintiff Anne Gilmore to settle the suit. To date, the university has paid about $3 million defending itself in the suit.
The plaintiffs sued the university after they said they were assaulted at a party attended by CU football recruits in 2001; the suit was filed under the federal Title IX program, which prohibits sexual discrimination in education.
The university isn’t admitting wrongdoing in its settlement. To be clear: The institution said it wanted to avoid protracted litigation.
In 2005, a court dismissed the sexual-discrimination case. But in September, that all changed. The appellate court overturned the dismissal—most notably because, as the court stated, evidence could support the plaintiffs’ claims that the university itself was negligent.
CU President Hank Brown said Wednesday morning at a news conference in Denver: “The University of Colorado is a different place than it was six years ago.”
We’re certainly hopeful.
Today’s CU will have a Title IX adviser and add a halftime position in the Office of Victim Assistance. Additionally, the recruiting program has undergone an overhaul.
Gone is former head coach Gary Barnett, who defended recruiting practices and denied that there was any sexual harassment in his football program, and said when former player Katie Hnida was called the “c-word” (the swear word meaning female genitalia) that it had nothing to do with her gender.
Gone is former university President Elizabeth Hoffman, a Barnett defender, who went one step further: She laughably said that the “c-word” was a term of endearment.
Gone is former athletics director Dick Tharp and former Chancellor Richard Byyny, who both couldn’t “recall” warnings by Boulder prosecutors about football policies and a previous allegation of rape at a recruiting party.
And, to the tune of $2.85 million (plus millions in legal fees and other costs): Gone is the recruiting scandal that hovered over CU for six years.
Good riddance.
Editorial:
