A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, July 14, on :
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is in hot water with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats for daring to say publicly what many others have been thinking for a year or more: It’s possible that Democrats could lose their majority in the House of Representatives this November.
Gibbs later said he was merely stating the obvious. He’s right. Furthermore, Gibbs left plenty of wiggle room. He didn’t predict a definite loss for the Democrats. He only said there were enough House seats up for grabs this year that a loss of the majority was a possibility.
One can rarely predict with certainty what will happen in elections still four months away. As events in Colorado’s gubernatorial race this week demonstrated, unexpected occurrences can change an election’s dynamic very quickly.
Moreover, we have not been among those voices predicting an unvarnished Republican victory this year. As primary battles across the country this spring and summer have demonstrated, voter anger seems to be directed at incumbents of all political stripes, not just at Democrats.
Even so, there are clearly a lot of Democrats facing uphill battles in congressional races this year—enough that Gibbs’ conditional prognostication is not at all out of line.
Do Democratic leaders like Pelosi—who according to various press reports, demanded that Gibbs take back his comments—really believe their fortunes will improve if nobody says out loud what a good many of their party members have been saying privately?
Talk about an ostrich philosophy.
Attacking the White House messenger for expressing valid concerns won’t bring Democrats victory in November.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, July 15, on why the oil industry can afford a cleanup tax:
If there’s an industry that can afford to pay a tax to clean up its mess, it’s the oil industry.
Yet the screaming has begun over the proposed cleanup tax inspired by the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Whether the industry is considered in the macro or the micro, the facts speak for themselves.
First the micro.
Transocean, the company that owns the oil drilling platform where the Gulf leak occurred, moved its headquarters from Houston to Switzerland to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It still has 1,300 people in Houston, and about 12 in Switzerland. It saved $1.8 billion in taxes, according to a study by Martin A. Sullivan, an economist for the trade publication Tax Analysts.
BP leases the platform from Transocean to take advantage of a tax break that permits it to write off most of the rental cost, a tax deduction of $82 million a year on that transaction alone.
Then the macro.
The oil industry pays far less than American business in general on capital investments—less than half, in fact.
Tax credits tend to wipe out the capital investment taxes the industry does pay. A New York Times report said that oil industry return on investment can be greater after taxes than before.
The U.S. Treasury Department found that oil industry profits were high enough to cause almost no impact on oil output if tax subsidies were eliminated. Some of the subsidies, like the nation’s mining laws, date to when the oil industry began operations and when the risk of failure was far greater than it is today.
Former President George W. Bush advocated elimination of the subsidies, but it hasn’t happened and probably won’t given the lobbying pressure on Congress from oil producing states.
Surely the industry can stand to pay a cleanup tax without affecting gas prices or oil industry employment.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Glenwood Springs Post Independent, July 15, on how Scott McInnis should have better handled a plagiarism controversy:
Now that Scott McInnis is embroiled in a plagiarism controversy, the Glenwood Springs native running for governor finds himself in rough waters.
With the Republican primary less than a month away, Mr. McInnis is facing some difficult questions concerning recent revelations.
At issue are accusations, followed by a subsequent admission, that writings submitted to a foundation by Mr. McInnis about Colorado water issues contained words, sections and portions that are the same or nearly identical to an essay written by now-Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory J. Hobbs more than 20 years ago.
Mr. McInnis has downplayed this incident, calling it a “nonissue” for voters, a situation that would not even be an issue if he wasn’t running for governor.
That’s how politics works. Skeletons will emerge in campaigns, with mistakes and missteps occurring along the way. How candidates handle those situations serve as examples to how they will handle themselves and issues if they are elected.
Fellow Republican candidate Dan Maes is currently dealing with the issue of campaign violations, and he has dealt with that issue head-on to resolve it.
Mr. McInnis has done a very poor job owning up to this plagiarism issue. He has since said that this is a “serious mistake,” although his first response was to shift blame to a Glenwood Springs water engineer for not attributing parts of the writing.
If we look back to our childhood, we knew what the repercussions were if we cheated on an exam, if the “dog ate our homework,” or if we didn’t do the work that was assigned.
Should we compare Mr. McInnis’ situation to elementary and high school cheating or assignment examples? We don’t see why not.
A student would be handed the consequences in the form of a failing grade.
On the journalism front, plagiarism by a reporter results in automatic termination.
So far, Mr. McInnis has not delivered a satisfactory reply. He also says that there will not be a public apology coming.
One of the harshest responses has come from the Hasan Family Foundation, who awarded Mr. McInnis the fellowship for articles and speaking arrangements. The foundation paid him $300,000 to submit his own writings. The agreement was that the articles would be “original and not reprinted from any other source.”
The Hasan Family Foundation is justifiably upset and disappointed with Mr. McInnis. It set the rules for the fellowship, and Mr. McInnis didn’t adhere to them. The foundation has demanded that Mr. McInnis return some or all of the $300,000.
We completely agree, and believe that Mr. McInnis should repay the entire amount for violating the rules of fellowship agreement.
Mr. McInnis says that the issue is really about not attributing sections of the writings properly. The Hasan Family Foundation obviously disagrees with that assessment.
From the very beginning, Mr. McInnis has tried to politically stiff-arm this issue, and it has created some disturbing ripples in the political pond. This is not a “nonissue,” as he claims.
This is a major issue of credibility and reputation.
Some are already asking him to pull out of the race for governor. We’re not ready to join those ranks yet; however, we need to see how Mr. McInnis handles this issue from here on.
The writings, with the plagiarized sections and Mr. McInnis’ decision to solicit outside help to complete the work, is a very big issue in this election because it is a credibility issue for the candidate.
This would be more of a nonissue if Mr. McInnis had handled it better and with more appropriateness from the start. We don’t feel that he’s taken enough responsibility, and his tardiness in acknowledging that this is a serious issue was a big blunder on his part.
First, he should repay the Hasan Family Foundation. Then, whatever Scott McInnis does or does not do to address this situation should resonate loudly with the voters of Colorado.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, July 18, on Michael Bennet being the best candidate for the Senate primary:
For Democratic voters, there’s one candidate in their U.S. Senate primary who is uniquely qualified to serve in these difficult times.
Appointed to the vacant seat in January 2009, Michael Bennet has a strong background in complicated financial matters at a time when the country is struggling with a burgeoning national debt and complex financial issues.
By virtue of his stints as an urban school superintendent and a Denver city official, Bennet also has a sophisticated sense of the education and civic issues facing Coloradans and the nation. We believe Democrats would be wise to select Bennet as their choice in the Aug. 10 primary election. (Ballots go out Monday.)
His opponent, Andrew Romanoff, has a commendable record of public service, but does not bring the same level of real-world expertise to the table. We don’t think Romanoff is a bad choice, and we have admired his leadership on various statewide issues, especially when he served as speaker of the Colorado House from 2005-09.
But Bennet has long impressed us with his intellect, humility and his ability to grasp complex issues.
He developed his financial skills working for Anschutz Investment Co., where he made a mark as a debt-restructuring specialist.
He moved on to work for Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper as chief of staff, establishing himself as an adept negotiator and public policy expert. He also helped shore up a huge budget shortfall.
But it was his performance as Denver Public Schools superintendent that most impressed us. Bennet came into that role without professional experience as an educator, but quickly grasped the magnitude of the problems in the urban district and began laying the groundwork for needed reforms. He took on labor interests and the district’s financial troubles and made clear his expectation that children of all socio-economic backgrounds could succeed.
We have yet to see Bennet’s independent streak emerge in the Senate, which has been disappointing. But we suspect if he wins in November, we will see him step out more forcefully on issues. We can only hope. He has promised us to be a budget hawk, working to cut back government spending and tackle the nation’s serious structural problems when it comes to the budget.
We haven’t agreed with all of his moves in the Senate thus far, but we think Democrats have a qualified and capable candidate in Michael Bennet, and would be well-served to send him to the general election in November.
Editorial:
