A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Dec. 15, on Stephanie Villafuerte’s withdrawal from consideration as U.S. attorney for Colorado:
Stephanie Villafuerte’s decision Monday to pull herself out of the running for consideration as Colorado’s next U.S. attorney was the right call.
Ultimately, Villafuerte was unable to fully explain a spate of phone calls she made to the Denver District Attorney’s office during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign when a restricted federal database was accessed.
Did she ask former colleagues at the DA’s office for information from the National Crime Information Center, which would be improper if not illegal? She says she is sure she did not, yet she also says she can’t remember the conversations.
You cannot have it both ways.
Last week, U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked to put a hold on her nomination.
It was clear Villafuerte was in for a bruising confirmation battle. It’s hard to imagine how the questions about Villafuerte’s involvement—if there was any involvement— in the NCIC episode were ever going to be fully answered.
Her bowing out was an acknowledgment of the reality of her situation. But in her letter of withdrawal to President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, she calls the valid questions surrounding her actions in the 2006 gubernatorial campaign “political attacks.” Such a characterization fails to acknowledge the substantive nature of those questions.
Trying to get to the bottom of whether Villafuerte, who was working on the Ritter campaign, asked her former colleagues at the Denver DA’s office to access a restricted federal law enforcement database, or received information from it, is not a political attack. It is an effort to figure out the truth in a convoluted situation in which accusations of impropriety had the ring of plausibility.
Remember, if you will, the heated pitch of the governor’s race in the fall of 2006. Republican candidate Bob Beauprez had aired ads attacking Ritter’s plea bargain record.
One searing piece featured the criminal record of Walter Noel Ramo, a small-time drug dealer who pled out to agricultural trespass instead of a drug charge. Ramo, an illegal immigrant with multiple aliases, went to California and under the name of Carlos Estrada-Medina sexually assaulted a child.
Ultimately, we learned that Beauprez’s campaign got the information linking Ramo to Estrada-Medina from the NCIC, which is for law enforcement purposes only. Ritter’s campaign figured out that someone had accessed the NCIC to create the ad and went public about it.
Later, it came out that someone at the Denver District Attorney’s Office accessed Estrada-Medina’s records at the same time Ritter’s campaign was making a big deal about the source of Beauprez’s information.
Curiously, Villafuerte’s cellphone records show numerous calls to her former colleagues at the DA’s office at that time. And she can’t remember exactly what they talked about.
Further muddying the waters, First Assistant District Attorney Chuck Lepley says the calls were about serious threats to Ritter from a man who had stalked a prior mayor. Lepley later said he was so concerned, he talked to police officials, yet police have no records of the reports.
The oddities and dead ends leave the distinct impression that certain questions about the events never were going to be answered, though they ought to be. Villafuerte may not have done anything wrong, but from what she’s said publicly, she lacks the ability to prove it.
And that creates a cloud of suspicion under which the state’s chief federal prosecutor cannot operate.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Dec. 10, on the federal government’s settlement of a class-action lawsuit by American Indians:
The federal government’s historically inept handling of American Indian trust accounts is finally, and thankfully, on the road to repair.
That is the upshot of a proposed $3.4 billion settlement of a long-running class action lawsuit Indians filed against the federal government. The suit involved some 50,000 Indians and 100 years of mismanagement.
We hope Congress moves expeditiously to approve the settlement, and the federal courts should sign off on it as well. We also hope the compromise is a sign the federal government is committed to changing the troubled relationship with the country’s Indian tribes.
Other steps that would go a long way to that end would be improving the Indian health care system, which is substandard and underfunded, and addressing reservation law-enforcement issues.
The Obama administration has made a commitment to improving conditions for and relations with the nation’s American Indian tribes.
The proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, filed 13 years ago, is in keeping with those promises. It would resolve claims that come out of a land division system more than a century old in which Congress divided lands into parcels and assigned them to individual Indians.
The Interior Department now manages some 56 million acres of trust lands for Indians, and handles leases for oil and gas drilling, mining and timber rights.
The millions of dollars annually that come from the leases are distributed to Indians, with some of that money going to Indians who are holders of allotted lands. That task has become more complicated as trust holders died, and the trust interests were passed on to an ever-increasing number of heirs.
The lawsuit accused the federal government of abject mismanagement and even theft of trust money.
It is, undoubtedly, a difficult situation to untangle. And while the settlement is only a portion of what the Indians had asked for, given the length of time the lawsuit has been pending and the complex—perhaps impossible—task of figuring out exactly who is owed what, we think it is a fair resolution.
According to the settlement, the government would pay $1.4 billion to the group for historic accounting mistakes. Also, in an effort to simplify what is called the “fractionalization” of land interests, the settlement would create a $2 billion fund for the voluntary buy-back and consolidation of the splintered ownership of the land. The land would be freed up for the benefit of tribal communities.
And the settlement would create an Indian education scholarship fund of up to $60 million to help Indians go to college or vocational school.
The settlement is a positive step. We look forward to seeing its approval, and hope for a future of better relations with the country’s Indian tribes.
Editorial:
———
The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Colo., Dec. 11, on the health care bill:
Among the most recent dust-ups regarding the massive health care reform bill awaiting action in the Senate was a demand late last week by labor leaders that Democrats eliminate the tax on so-called “Cadillac” health insurance plans. The tax wouldn’t affect only corporate fat cats, the labor leaders rightly proclaimed, but would tag many middle-class Americans who traded higher wages in favor of better health plans through their employers.
That issue followed a variety of disputes—from abortion to expanded Medicare coverage to pay caps for insurance executives to the multiple permutations of the public option—that have dogged health care bills.
At more than 2,000 pages and growing, the bill has become too large not to fail. The legislation has so many moving parts that it’s impossible to keep track of all of them or know with any certainty what their consequences will be. When it affects 16 percent of our national economy and likely will increase our rapidly mounting national debt, the consequences for all of us could be unimaginable.
Frankly, we believe it’s time for Congress to drop this Rube Goldberg approach to health care reform—in which new sections are continually being added to the battered legislative contraption while members hope they can still make it function.
A better approach is to attack health care reform incrementally, focusing first on cost containment. Keep costs from continuing on their skyrocketing trajectory and you will prevent families and businesses from dropping health insurance. You also will make it more feasible to provide coverage to those who are now uninsured.
We don’t claim to have a simple idea to accomplish cost containment. Indeed, we don’t believe there are any simple solutions. But there are measures that have been suggested which can begin to make a dent.
One such measure, discussed by many people but absent from both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill, is to abolish the ban on buying insurance across state lines. The ban was created because individual states wanted to regulate insurance within their boundaries. But it has proved costly and inefficient, while in today’s world offering no great protection to consumers.
Especially in states where very few insurers operate, eliminating the ban would spark competition and help stabilize, if not reduce, insurance prices.
Additionally, we think the government should expand the availability of HSAs—health savings accounts—that allow individuals to set aside a portion of their pre-tax pay into a savings account they can use to pay health care bills and purchase insurance. Any money left over at the end of the year can be rolled into the following year and, eventually put toward retirement.
HSAs provide incentives for individuals to spend their health care dollars carefully and to shop for the best insurance deals. They won’t work for everyone, but they make sense for many people and will help contain costs, especially if they’re linked to high-deductible, catastrophic health insurance plans.
One of the serious problems related to health care costs stems from the fact that medicine has evolved in recent decades in such a way that it rewards doctors, hospitals and clinics based on the number of patients they see or the procedures they perform, rather than on the overall quality of care.
Several measures aimed at addressing that issue are included in the Senate bill now. And they would be expanded upon by amendments offered last week by Senate Democratic freshmen, including Colorado’s Michael Bennet and Mark Udall.
For example, one of the freshmen amendments would expand a proposed pilot program on what’s called “bundling” of payments—offering a single comprehensive fee for treatment of certain medical conditions such as diabetes instead of charging separate fees for each doctor visit or each procedure performed.
There is also a pay-for-performance pilot program for Medicare that would be expanded under the freshmen amendments.
These are among several good ideas that could be implemented through individual legislation. They don’t have to be part of a huge health care bill, nor do they require the massive new bureaucracy that the bill would create.
We also think there should be tougher rules to limit physicians’ financial entanglement in surgical hospitals or ownership in costly diagnostic equipment. That sort of financial linkage creates incentives for doctors to perform more costly procedures than they might otherwise recommend.
There are no doubt many other ideas being developed to curb costs by people with substantial expertise in health care. Those that have merit should muster enough votes in Congress to be implemented.
The notion that we have to fix health care with one massive, many-faceted bill—which will have thousands of unforeseen consequences and whose impact on our national economy is far from predictable—should be as obsolete as a 1940s x-ray machine.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Greeley Tribune, Colo., Dec. 15, on Vestas Wind Systems keeping its workers employed:
As the headlines scream of layoffs and job loss, it’s nice to see a company make a commitment to its workers.
That’s what Vestas Wind Systems did last week. Despite initial confusion about whether employees would be furloughed during a planned halt in the production of wind turbine blades, Vestas came back with a commitment to keep its workers busy and employed, despite the slowdown.
In this day and age, for a company to keep workers employed even when business is down is simply not heard of.
This, of course, is incredible news to employees at the Windsor plant. Workers reported Vestas has always been honest and upfront with them about changes at the company, and they remain confident Vestas will make good on its promise to keep employees working.
Peter Kruse, senior vice president for group communications for Vestas at its home base in Copenhagen, Denmark, said the first of the year is traditionally a slow time for the company. In fact, the company has no new orders for its product, and when old orders are filled, there is no new work on the immediate horizon. The downturn in the economy is to blame, at least in part.
Despite this, the company has committed to keeping workers busy, retooling machinery and retraining employees. Kruse said there is a chance many workers will have to take a few furlough days here and there, but no one will be laid off.
Some American companies could take a lesson from Vestas’ actions. When the economy took a dive, many companies quickly responded with layoffs and firings to save profits. This in turn makes the state of the economy even worse as the unemployed reduce their spending and turn to the public dole to make ends meet.
While we understand companies can’t operate at a loss for long, it is nice to see Vestas put its people above profits, if only for a short while.
We are lucky to have Vestas as a member of our community. Not only does it employ 500 of our residents—and potentially more as its new operation in Brighton comes on line—but it does so with respect and caring.
Congratulations to Vestas for the way it’s handled this situation and for being a good employer and neighbor. We hope this slowdown in business is temporary and short-lived.
Editorial:
———
The Reporter-Herald, Loveland, Colo., Dec. 15, on Colorado State University considering a ban on concealed weapons on campus:
An ironic juxtaposition of university policies played out earlier this month, showing the importance of campuses setting their own rules as their governing bodies see fit.
Colorado State University’s Board of Governors voted Dec. 4 to work toward banning concealed weapons on campus. Policy drafts from both campuses are due in February and will be voted on then by the board of governors.
Until that vote, Colorado State University campuses will allow permit-holding students to carry weapons anyplace on campus except in the residence halls.
Meanwhile, University of Colorado leaders deemed it necessary to remind students that the CU weapons policy bans fake guns, including Nerf guns often used in the college tag game Humans vs. Zombies.
The game came and went with the use of balled-up socks rather than play guns.
Those who argue for allowing concealed weapons on a college campus point out students often feel safer because they can carry their own protection or because anyone can have a gun and could stop a shooter or a crime.
Unfortunately, though, campus shooters come to campus heavily armed. Compare that with a concealed gun carrier with one gun and some ammunition. Most who carry concealed weapons aren’t trained in negotiating with or protecting others from such criminals.
Many also point out that college campuses emulate larger society including its laws. But college campuses are different in that they have a concentration of young people living in close quarters and who are learning to strike out on their own and define who they are. Unfortunately, too, heavy drinking often permeates campuses more than a community as a whole.
Campuses have their own governing bodies—even police agencies—that deal with the issues presented in such living situations.
CU chooses to rule with an oddly politically correct bent regarding guns.
CSU, until now, has ruled loosely on the topic.
Those leaders are doing what they believe best for their student populations.
Editorial:
