A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Durango Herald, Oct. 14, on the need for Americans to change their financial habits:
There is an old bumper-sticker “prayer” that gets trotted out whenever the economy goes downhill: “Lord, give us another boom. We promise not to waste this one.”
Assuming that this “downturn” holds to the historic pattern, it will not be permanent. Eventually the economy will begin to recover, maybe not with the boom the hurting nation would like to see, but at least with a glimmer of light among the doom and gloom.
What would it mean, if Americans really did learn the economic lessons now being written in red ink? How would they act?
—People would live on what they earned. Really.
—They would value their primary residence as a roof over their heads rather than as an investment.
—They would not borrow more money than they could afford to repay.
—They would not borrow on expectations, including good raises and promotions for the next five years, a rich relative’s imminent demise or continued record growth of their investments.
—Lenders would follow the same rules.
—The government would not encourage them to do otherwise.
—Credit cards would not be an accepted and easy way of financing a personal deficit, month after month after month.
—Credit-card companies wouldn’t raise credit limits every time a consumer approached them.
—Loan agreements, including credit-card applications, would be written in plain English, large enough to read.
—People would learn the difference between needs and wants.
—Individuals would save for their own rainy days instead of expecting government programs and credit cards to cover their emergencies.
—The system would seem fair.
That last one, perhaps the most essential in convincing everyone to adopt a new financial ethic, does not seem particularly likely. For that matter, the others—for all that, they are just common sense—do not seem particularly likely either. That raises a good question: How bad would things have to get before Americans really changed their ways? The very frightening answer may be that we will not learn, will not change, as long as the government has the ability to soften the blows. That is what conservatives have long said about “welfare moms” who, they said, ought to work harder on their own behalf. Now presidential candidate John McCain is proposing to bail out struggling homeowners, many of whom live in nicer homes than their more financially prudent neighbors. And small-business owners are watching in disbelief as the Bush administration figures out how to administer a rescue package with 11 zeros after the $7, knowing that only the zeros are likely to trickle down to the level at which nearly everything in a small town operates.
On top of all the other errors and misjudgments that people in this country are now realizing they cannot afford, the worst mistake possible would be to continue to support a system that creates such bitter resentment between the big winners at the top and the multiple losers at the bottom. Getting rich may be the American dream, but being treated fairly is the foundation.
Self-interest is not going to go away, especially when it coincides so neatly with the need for stability. As long as big risks can pay off big, while the reward for responsible behavior is watching the government bail out the irresponsible, it is hard to see how the current plan leads to a permanent change for the better.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Oct. 12, on the financial resources needed to fight wildfires:
Coloradans get firsthand the importance of maintaining and protecting national forests, so we’re mystified by Washington’s inability to set up a reasonable—or even a basic—budget that allows the U.S. Forest Service to both deal with wildfires and see to its normal responsibilities.
Here’s a news flash: Another hot and dry summer out West meant large forest fires. Why should that come as a surprise to those holding the purse strings at the Forest Service?
Climate change’s longer and drier summers, the mass pine-beetle destruction and the season’s frequent lightning strikes construct a familiar equation by now. We hope Congress will start factoring it in by seriously considering legislation that was dropped this year that would have created a separate fund for fire suppression.
By the end of August, the cost of fighting fires forced the Forest Service to redirect $700 million from traditional programs like maintaining roads and trails and creating other recreational improvements to cover a $1.9 billion firefighting tab. Some campgrounds were closed. More bizarre have been cuts in recent years from programs meant to prevent runaway fires, like thinning dead forests or engineering buffer zones for the growing number of new homes in or near forested areas.
Research at the University of Montana meant to discover critical information about how wildfires behave was on the cutting board, as was research focused on the pine beetle crisis in the Rockies.
We suggest those programs are the wrong ones to threaten.
Ultimately, the Forest Service received an emergency “patch” from discretionary funds, but only after Congress saw the disruption the agency faced in pulling money from vital projects to fight fires.
Colorado, meanwhile, benefits from 11 national forests and two national grasslands that make up about 20 percent of the state.
Yes, we are facing wildfires of a different sort right now. Wall Street’s federal deficit clock has run out of numbers, we’re mired in two wars and our leadership has become understandably consumed by the credit crisis and its lightning-fast spread to local and global economies alike.
But failing to protect our national forests when we know the fires will come isn’t cost-effective. Spending the money it takes up front to responsibly manage forests makes far greater sense.
Colorado’s Rep. Mark Udall, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, supports a proposal by The Wilderness Society that would create a separate firefighting account like Congress employs to deal with hurricanes and other disasters.
The House this July approved the Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement Act (or FLAME Act), that should have provided such an account. But deliberations stalled in the Senate.
We suggest the stop-gap funding currently in process prevents thoughtful planning, and urge lawmakers to give the FLAME Act responsible consideration.
Editorial:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo., Oct. 10, on keeping the roadless plan intact:
The new mantra of conservation groups that don’t like the Colorado plan to manage some 4 million acres of national forest roadless areas in the state is: Just wait, say until next year, when a new president may issue yet another edict on how the roadless areas should be managed. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have already issued conflicting orders.
But, even if the next president offers a new plan, conflicting federal court rulings about the validity of the original Clinton rule could end up delaying protection of the areas even longer.
That’s why we continue to believe the Colorado plan should be adopted by federal officials.
The plan was developed through multiple public meetings during Gov. Bill Owens’ administration and was endorsed, with a few changes, by Gov. Bill Ritter. Ritter has called it an insurance policy in the event the federal roadless rule is ultimately deemed invalid, and it is definitely that.
Along with others, we have long believed there was a problem with a loophole in the state plan that allowed new gas leases in a few roadless areas while the plan was being considered. We hope that loophole can be closed.
But the Colorado plan, in general, is a sensible road map for managing roadless areas. It should be adopted.
Editorial: 8—6A—roadless—edit.html
———
Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Oct. 11, on the reward in the Darrent Williams murder case:
Do the right thing, Denver Broncos and Crime Stoppers.
Do the right thing even if the Denver chief of detectives has other ideas.
At a press conference recently, Chief of Detectives Dave Fisher insisted that no one deserved any of the reward money put up by the Broncos ($100,000) and Crime Stoppers ($2,000) for information that led to solving the murder of cornerback Darrent Williams. Fisher said police received little assistance in their investigation and that he would recommend against a payout.
This is baffling. Yes, people who clearly must have known what happened that fatal New Year’s Day nearly two years ago, or had a very good idea, did not exactly flock to inform police. But there is a notable exception to this stonewalling: the man who turned over a letter written by none other than the alleged murderer, Willie D. Clark, while Clark was in federal detention. In that letter … no, wait. It is better to quote directly from the indictment.
“In the summer of 2008,” the indictment says, “Denver police detectives received a letter reportedly written by Willie Clark, in which Clark admitted to shooting and killing Darrent Williams. On or about August 21, 2008, Denver police detective Michael Martinez contacted Willie Clark and Clark admitted that he had written the letter, and Clark said that it had already been established that he wrote the letter and he was not denying writing this letter.”
That’s right: The letter is important enough to warrant a full paragraph. In fact, it appears right after another paragraph revealing that a witness in the white SUV from which the fatal shots were fired has identified Clark as the shooter. Most of the rest of the indictment is a narrative of what prosecutors believe happened.
The man who turned over the letter happens to be a former gang member for whom cooperation with the police is not, shall we say, the behavioral norm. Unlike some citizens who go to the police, he faced a substantial personal risk, and yet overcame his fear. To this day he considers himself to be vulnerable to retaliation—for good reason.
Shouldn’t officials seek to encourage this willingness to break with gang culture rather than act as if what this man did was irrelevant? How can it be irrelevant if the evidence he provided is highlighted in the indictment?
We’re not suggesting the man who turned over the letter receive the full $102,000, or perhaps anything close to it. For one thing, he stopped cooperating with authorities, claiming that their efforts to protect him were inadequate.
We also realize that the Broncos and Crime Stoppers have their own criteria for making good on any reward.
Still, it is incontestable that this man provided a very significant piece of evidence to police. If that’s not worthy of reward money, then the offer is a farce.
Editorial:
