A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, March 29, on strengthening financial oversight system instead of creating a new watchdog agency:
Sometimes a new problem doesn’t require a newfangled solution.
Exhibit A: the proposal by Sen. Chris Dodd to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency within the Federal Reserve.
Instead, we’d rather see a focused return to fundamentals than creation of a new, all-encompassing government agency. To begin with, Dodd’s CFPA proposal is a watered-down version of a plan passed in the House that would have created a much stronger and more independent consumer-protection agency.
Because the Democrat’s current plan would establish the new watchdog within the existing Federal Reserve, many have argued convincingly, it would lack the kind of autonomy needed to streamline regulations in a useful way. Far from simplifying regulations meant to protect consumers, the proposed CFPA would add yet another layer to several existing layers and create more confusion than clarity.
And confusion in the marketplace at this precarious juncture would be about as useful as a bucket of gasoline in a house fire.
The understandable outrage over the abuses by giant Wall Street firms that contributed to the recession, along with the misery caused by the foreclosure crisis, has led Dodd to his mission.
Politically, pushing a CFPA appeals to populist sentiment.
But Americans ought to remember that the federal bureaucracy already contains several strong regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Those and other regulatory arms already are charged with protecting consumers.
Yes, even with those several filters in place, an unsustainable bubble grew that harmed millions when it burst. But does is make sense to create more government with such extensive authority over the economy when it is clear that existing government didn’t work?
It reminds us of the creation of the giant Homeland Security department after the failures that led to 9/11.
Rather, Dodd and other Democrats should pursue a plan to make the existing regulators more effective.
And though Dodd’s target is large investment companies that helped contribute to the crash, small business owners are reacting fearfully to his bill. Such entrepreneurs contend the rush to punish the sins of the massive investment firms will also hurt mom-and-pop operations.
One simple example is that small companies that extend loans to other businesses and to customers would face new regulations. Fearing the complexity of the new rules, several businesses would just stop loaning.
Without easy access to credit, however, businesses would face more difficulty in growing their operations, slowing America’s recovery.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other trade groups are advocating for a panel of leaders from the various regulatory agencies to study ways to strengthen the safety net. The council would look to eliminate regulatory gaps and find areas where new regulations might be necessary.
We think that makes sense, and urge the Senate to move in that direction first.
If such a panel is ineffective, Congress could then return to the notion of creating a more powerful watchdog to replace or oversee the others.
Editorial:
———
The Gazette, March 26, on easing of military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy:
The military is moving beyond its bizarre obsession with sexual orientation, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The policy serves as a de facto ban on gays and lesbians in the military. They can serve, but only if their sexuality is kept a secret. The secrecy keeps some military personnel from seeking medical help or reporting domestic abuse.
One does not need to accept as moral and righteous any particular sexual orientation to know that it shouldn’t be considered as criteria for contracting with the government to battle in war. The military is not a church, or a private school. We cannot maintain an adequate all-volunteer military, while mired in two foreign wars, if we’re going to trouble warriors because of their sex lives. Who cares if a skilled fighter pilot is a woman in love with a woman? We should concern ourselves with her ability to carry out missions with precision, protecting our country from enemy aggressors.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates concurs, approving new rules March 25 that will ease enforcement of the 1993 congressional ban on gays in the military. Meanwhile, Congress is considering President Barack Obama’s goal of lifting the ban entirely.
Our military is not strengthened by divisive policies that serve no strategic concern. Gates said his decision reflects “common sense and common decency.” Indeed it does.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Sentinel, March 25 on state’s campaign finance law:
Colorado’s campaign finance laws need to be amended in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year that struck down restrictions in federal law similar to some limitations in Colorado law.
The question is whether the state Legislature, already dealing with huge budget deficits and a variety of other critical issues, will find time to make the changes in a reasoned manner.
Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buescher made it clear this week a number of provisions in state law and measures in the state Constitution that were approved by voters in 2002 conflict with the Supreme Court ruling and need to be changed. They include prohibitions on foreign companies giving money to candidates in Colorado races and disclosure requirements when such contributions are made.
The Supreme Court decision angered many people because it allows much greater spending by corporations and labor unions in election campaigns. While the decision has troubling implications, it also amounted to a strengthening of free speech and campaign spending, which is a form of political speech.
We hope that, with Buescher’s input, the Legislature can quickly craft the necessary changes to meet the requirements of the federal decision.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, March 24, on state bill that would require insurers to use more comprehensive language when writing policies:
It’s fitting that while Colorado students put the finishing touches on the Colorado Student Assessment Program tests for another year, lawmakers are looking at ways to make one of the most important contracts residents will sign easier to read.
House Bill 1166, sponsored by Rep. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, will require insurers to produce contracts and policy descriptions in language that can be understood by the average high school sophomore.
What that will mean is fewer of the words and clauses understood only by lawyers and judges, and more sentences that directly convey the meaning of what’s covered, the level of coverage provided and what it will mean to the policyholder.
The bill covers insurance policies for cars, health, dental and long-term care. It is important for residents to know the protection they are buying.
Colorado is hardly the first state to demand such communication standards from its insurers. In fact, if the bill is passed, Colorado would become the 37th state to have such requirements. Because it is required in other states, representatives from the insurance industry were able to cooperate with Colorado lawmakers to make the rules palatable to insurers.
The bill sailed through its committee assignment and passed in the House, 51-12. It awaits Senate action.
Requiring easier-to-read language is a good start; however, policyholders need to do their share by reading the provisions of their insurance contracts and knowing their levels of coverage. Many times insurance disputes can be easily resolved through knowledge.
House Bill 1166 is a good step for residents to gain it.
Editorial:
