A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Longmont Times-Call, Dec. 6, on the Afghanistan troop increase:
President Barack Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan comes at a time of growing isolationist sentiment among Americans.
According to a recent poll from the Pew Research Center, 49 percent of Americans say the U.S. should mind its own business and let other countries take care of themselves. In 2002, only 30 percent of Americans favored such an isolationist stance.
Obama also faces an uphill battle in persuading Congress to fund the troop buildup. And there’s no guarantee our NATO allies will back this effort with more troops of their own.
Eight years of conflict in Afghanistan have not conclusively made the U.S., or the rest of the world, safer from the threat of terrorism. Afghanistan continues to struggle with an economy still much dependent on opium, a government fraught with corruption, the Taliban insurgency and other problems that a larger military presence likely won’t solve.
Stability in Afghanistan—a country that hasn’t seen any form of stability since the early 1970s—is not likely to be achieved militarily. And the country absolutely will not achieve any stability if the Pakistan government continues to turn a blind eye to safe havens for Taliban and al-Qaida forces near its border with Afghanistan.
The U.S. and its NATO allies have had eight years to stabilize Afghanistan. If this latest effort shows no substantive results within the next year, it will be time to start bringing our troops home.
———
The Pueblo Chieftain, Dec. 8, on Sen. Joe Lieberman and the health care public option debate:
Sen. Joe Lieberman may prove the unmovable obstacle to the so-called public option, the centerpiece of ObamaCare being debated now in the Senate.
Although he won re-election as an independent after the Connecticut Democratic Party opted to run a more liberal candidate in 2006, Sen. Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Yet he has shown an independent streak, backing Republican presidential candidate John McCain last year and more recently supporting President Barack Obama’s troop surge strategy in Afghanistan.
So, when he said in a recent Wall Street Journal interview that he is adamantly opposed to the public option, we tend to believe him. He has worked on reforms in American health care, but he simply believes that a public option is bad policy.
“It was always about how do we make the system more efficient and less costly, and how do we expand coverage to people who can’t afford it, and how do we adopt some consumer protections from the insurance companies,” he said. “So where did this public option come from?” It was hardly mentioned during last year’s election campaign.
“Some in our caucus, and some outside in interest groups, after the president won such a great victory and there were more Democrats in the Senate and the House, said this is the moment to go for single payer.” Which is to say, the first step toward socialized medicine in the United States, where the government would control every aspect of Americans’ health care. Sen. Lieberman dismisses Democratic arguments that the public option, however it’s described, is necessary to keep insurers honest. “Sometimes the private sector does things that are wrong, and when they do, you regulate – sometimes you litigate,” he said. “But never in the history of America . . . have we tried to keep one industry honest by having government go into that business to compete with the industry.”
Sen. Lieberman said he’ll work with Republicans to enact malpractice reform. So much of the overutilization of medical tests and procedures is done because doctors try to keep from getting sued every time there is a bad outcome in someone’s health care.
Democrats in Congress by and large oppose this reform because tort attorneys constitute one of their biggest campaign donor groups, and those lawyers expect something for their money.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid claimed Monday that “we are close” to passing ObamaCare on the fast track he and the president have called for. But he needs 60 votes to pass this massive bill, including the public option, and Sen. Lieberman indicated in the Journal that he’ll never vote for that provision.
The public option would become another entitlement, one which would gobble up more and more of Americans’ money through all of the commissions and bureaucracies contained in the legislation. The Democrats’ claim that ObamaCare would provide better coverage to more people at less cost simply can’t survive the laugh test.
The whole bill needs to be put to death so that individual reforms can be enacted one at a time, after full and thoughtful deliberation and debate.
————
STATE/REGIONAL:
The Colorado Springs Gazette, Dec. 7, on homelessness in the city:
Just as Hoovervilles sprung up in the Great Depression, homeless encampments have popped up throughout Colorado Springs. Growing numbers of people live in tents and shanties on public property, raising concerns about sanitation, safety, and causing problems for business owners who say beggars badger and frighten customers away.
The Colorado Springs City Council began discussing the dilemma, and possible solutions, at an informal meeting Monday. One idea involves an ordinance that would forbid camping on public property within city limits.
The shanty villages create an array of problems. But all humans cause problems for themselves and others, regardless of the lifestyles they choose. People with homes destroy vegetation, displace wildlife and pollute with cars. Their sewage ends up in creeks that carry it downstream. People who live in tents have a relatively negligible effect on the environment and other humans.
Council members are genuinely interested in helping the homeless and concerned business owners. Unfortunately, we can’t solve all of life’s problems down at City Hall.
All parties need to accept that the homeless have always been with us. In times of economic despair, their numbers grow. It’s an intractable issue. One legitimate option for the City Council, therefore, is to do nothing and say this: “We understand your concern, it’s valid, but we can’t fix it.”
Individuals in the community need to work with the homeless, helping to resolve concerns. Worried about the trash they create? Then consider helping them clean it up. Concerned about sanitation? Then consider providing a composting toilet to an encampment near you. Concerned they’ll freeze to death? Then bring blankets, coats, hats, gloves and firewood. Every living person, in any situation, affects other humans in some way. The homeless are no different. We cannot sweep them from our lives, with an oppressive new law, simply because they’re pervasive.
The growing encampments pose a complex dilemma, with no simple solutions.
————
The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Dec. 2, on oil and gas permits:
State gas drilling permits in Colorado will now be good for two years, instead of one, exactly the same amount of time allowed under a federal drilling permit.
That’s important, because many energy companies in Colorado drill on federal land as well as private land. And when they work on federal lands, they need a state permit as well as a federal one. It’s only sensible that the two operate for the same time period.
Additionally, as technology allows more and more wells to be drilled from a single well pad, it may not be possible to drill all of the permitted wells within one year.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission approved the extension of state permits from one year to two during a meeting this week, based on requests from the oil and gas industry.
A big reason that the commission was willing to consider an extension to the drilling-permit time period was the new environmental regulations adopted by the commission earlier this year.
Dave Neslin, director of the commission, noted that the new rules gave his agency more opportunity to consult with state wildlife authorities and state health officials prior to approving a drilling permit, so there is less need to re-evaluate the permits after a year.
The timing change won’t jump-start the gas industry in Colorado, which slowed significantly last year due to both national and regional issues. But it will offer more regulatory consistency to those companies wanting to drill, especially on federal lands in this state.
We applaud the Oil and Gas Commission for listening to the energy companies and making this appropriate change.
