A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Jan. 11, on President-elect Barack Obama’s conflicting goals:
President-elect Barack Obama is taking office embracing two almost mutually exclusive economic goals. On the one hand, he wants to gain control over the spiraling federal budget deficit—the excess of spending over revenues—and on the other he is seeking massive federal spending in an attempt to kick-start the flagging economy.
Unless we take action, he said, the country is faced with “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come.” Budget reform, he said, “is an absolute necessity.”
How much of a necessity became starkly clear when the Congressional Budget Office released its deficit forecast for fiscal 2009 that ends next Sept. 30—$1.19 trillion. Some private analysts think it will be more like $2 trillion. That dwarfs the deficit for fiscal 2008—$455 billion—and that was an all-time record (although not as a percentage of GDP).
The CBO forecast includes only what is on the books now. It does not include Obama’s planned nearly $800 billion economic recovery package. The CBO sees the deficit getting back to manageable levels in 2012, but only if two politically improbable events take place that would sharply raise taxes on millions of Americans—the Bush tax cuts expire in their entirety and Congress doesn’t tinker with the Alternative Minimum Tax.
The Fed doesn’t see a recovery, a slow one, until the middle of this year followed by anemic growth in 2010. The danger is that once the short-term crisis of the recession passes, the White House and the Congress will lose interest in the long-term crisis of accumulating deficits.
Obama says he won’t hesitate from making tough choices. We’ll soon find out because he’s setting himself up for an early showdown with Congress. He has decreed that there will be absolutely no earmarks—lawmakers’ personal spending projects—in the recovery bill.
What will he do when a senior member of Congress defiantly includes an earmark and threatens to derail the whole bill if he doesn’t get it? We’ll soon know if the tough choices are just rhetoric.
Editorial:
———
The Gazette, Jan. 9, on the costs associated with the complicated U.S. tax code:
The federal government’s taxpayer advocate estimates that Americans spend some $200 billion a year just to jump through the hoops of obeying the government’s 3.7-million-word tax code. That’s $200 billion wasted.
Sure, someone preparing taxes means someone else sells a calculator, or accounting services, or photo copies. But it’s waste, nevertheless. It’s $200 billion that could otherwise move society forward. It’s $200 billion that isn’t spent on home improvements, or nicer cars, or nicer clothes, or continuing education, or dinner and wine out on the town. It is $200 billion that’s spent just to keep the government off the backs of the people who comprise the only source of wealth the government has.
Of course, the $200 billion cost of obeying the tax code is expected to increase with the stimulus program, as it will be paid in the form of tax breaks that are expected to further complicate the code.
The freakishly complicated tax code has resulted from millions of efforts by the government to engineer the culture. It rewards some behaviors and punishes others.
That’s all the tax code does.
A simpler tax code would be the best way for government to boost the economy, while enhancing liberty.
Editorial:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
Vail Daily, Jan. 10, on the importance of tourism funding:
The Colorado Legislature has a tough job this year. Projections show the state facing a budget shortfall of as much as $600 million for the 2009 fiscal year.
That’s going to mean cuts big and small throughout the state’s budget. But we’d encourage legislators to leave one line item untouched—the state’s tourism marketing budget.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish voters allowed a small sales tax for tourism marketing to expire in the 1990s. When the money vanished, the state’s tourism numbers declined. A few legislators—notably former Sen. Jack Taylor and his successor, Al White, both of whom represent Eagle County—tried for years to pump money back into marketing the state.
They had little success until 2006, when the legislature finally approved putting $20 million per year from the state’s gambling revenue into marketing the state. The result has been the fairly successful “Let’s Talk Colorado” campaign, which has lured people to seek out both well- and little-known spots across the state.
The idea of cutting that funding after little more than a year seems absurd to us, and not just because we live in the Vail Valley. In fact, while the state campaign enhances the marketing programs of Vail Resorts and other big players, it’s virtually the only exposure lesser-known tourist spots get outside the state.
Compiling the list of government programs that actually bring money back to taxpayers doesn’t take much time.
Tourism funding is one of those very few programs, bringing in an estimated $6 in new spending for every dollar spent on advertising. If our Legislature is serious about keeping money flowing into the treasuries from Denver to Ouray, lawmakers need to understand how important it is for our state to sell itself to the rest of the country.
Editorial: ofile1065&titleVail%20Daily%27s%20view%3A%20State%20should%20not%20cut%20s olid%20investment%20in%20tourism%20funding
———
The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo., Jan. 9, on the State of the State:
In his State of the State address last Thursday, Gov. Bill Ritter did not attempt to portray Colorado’s economic situation through rose-colored glasses. He was blunt about the tough times facing the state, and we appreciate that.
There were proposals mentioned in his speech that seem to make a great deal of sense, such as tax credits that encourage private job creation and a plan to use federal revenue to expand pipeline capacity so the state’s abundant natural gas can more easily reach markets.
Other proposals outlined by Ritter are more problematic. He didn’t go into detail about how he plans to obtain more revenue for Colorado’s roads and bridges, but some of the tax proposals discussed earlier could hurt outlying parts of the state. We’ll have more on that in a later editorial. And we need more information about the plan to assess new per-patient fees on hospitals to raise revenue for Medicaid before we comment on it.
A couple of Ritter’s statements require additional comment. One is his declaration about the need to change the TABOR Amendment because it acts as “a straitjacket” on state budgeting.
We have supported efforts to change—but not eliminate—TABOR, including an unsuccessful measure on last year’s ballot. But it must be noted that TABOR acts as a constraint on the state budget only when the economy and revenues are booming. That’s certainly not the case now. Facing massive budget shortfalls, Colorado is in no danger of exceeding TABOR’s limits for annual revenue growth.
Amendment 23, the measure that requires annual inflationary increases for public schools regardless of what is happening with the state budget, has a far greater impact on the budget now than TABOR. But Ritter didn’t mention Amendment 23.
The governor also asked lawmakers to finalize new state rules to regulate gas drilling. We have supported the process used to develop those rules and believe they are important for protecting Colorado’s health and environment.
However, unlike some who support the rules, we don’t believe they are sacred writ that cannot be touched by the Legislature. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission developed the new regulations under a series of bills adopted by the Legislature in 2007. Lawmakers have an obligation to review those rules now to see if they comport with that legislation, and amend them if needed.
Ritter made another important statement Thursday. “I will look at everything we work on this session through the lens of the economy,” he said. Given the economic crisis facing the state, he’s right. All other issues must be secondary to the economy.
Editorial: 9—4B—state—of—state—edit.html
