A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Sept. 22, on using recession as a chance to reach out to Cuba:
It may turn out that the longest recession since World War II has a silver lining after all.
Cuba announced last week that it would have to lay off a half-million government workers. We take no joy in the suffering of our neighbors to the southeast, no matter how much of a thorn in the side Fidel Castro has been over the years.
But the fact is, this is an opening for freedom.
In addition to the layoffs, the communist nation announced it would loosen its stranglehold on private enterprise in hopes that those workers who lost their jobs either can find work with a new business or perhaps start one of their own.
The move also comes on the heels of Castro’s recent statement that the Cuban model isn’t working anymore.
This does not necessarily mean another communist wall has fallen—some Cuban leaders later said the model merely needs to be tweaked—but it does offer a great chance for the U.S. to extend a hand of friendship and a chance for the island nation to take steps toward rejoining the global marketplace.
The time seems perfect for the U.S. to re-examine trade and travel barriers that have been in place against Cuba since the 1960s.
Easier access to Cuba’s 5 million residents could help American businesses to grow and help Cuban freedoms to expand.
Easier access to U.S. markets could help fledgling Cuban businesses to thrive.
The U.S. can either continue to shun Cuba and punish Fidel Castro for the actions of a previous generation, possibly leading to a new wave of immigrants washing ashore in Florida, or we can reach out and try to help both of our nations recover from this recession.
The choice could have historic implications.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Sept. 27, on need to make a decision soon regarding the Bush tax cuts:
Even though the recession is officially over, the American economy remains dour and weak partly because of the uncertainties so many businesses face.
Given the vast reforms in health care and financial regulation that still are being figured out, along with questions about the strength of the recovery and continued stinginess in the credit markets, it’s understandable that folks would be cautious.
Congress could have added a measure of certainty to the discussion by deciding what to do with the Bush tax cuts.
Unfortunately, the Senate opted to wait until after Election Day. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House still might take it up before it recesses this week, but the speaker looks to be playing politics as she seeks a vote that would require two-thirds of the House to approve. The move seems like an attempt to force Republicans to vote against tax breaks for the middle class in deference to rich earners.
If the debate is indeed delayed until after Election Day, perhaps then it can be debated fairly. While we have never thought it made sense to wage two wars on tax cuts, we see little harm in extending them for at least one more year as the nation gains its financial footing.
But whatever happens, the debate should focus on the facts, as both parties are playing fast and loose with certain arguments.
If nothing is done, and all the tax cuts expire, Republicans are warning that Americans will face the heftiest spike in taxes in our nation’s history. That’s not true.
An analysis by The Associated Press finds that while such an outcome would, in fact, dramatically lift taxes, they would not be as great as they were during World War II. Repealing all the cuts would save nearly $4 trillion within 10 years, so that should be some comfort to those who want to bring down the national debt.
Ending the yearly across-the-board tax cuts would equal about 2 percent of the gross domestic product. In World War II, taxes rose by 5 percent of GDP.
Meanwhile, President Obama worries about what extending tax cuts to the wealthy—those earning more than $200,000 a year, or couples making more than $250,000—will do to the deficit. The AP found that extending the Bush cuts for those earners would add $700 billion to the debt within 10 years.
That’s nothing to scoff at, but what actually happens to the economy if you increase taxes for that bracket, which includes small business owners as well as the super rich?
Both sides of the debate make good points in the argument, the AP found.
Yes, it’s true that most small-business owners report income from their business on individual tax returns and pay taxes at the same marginal rates like lower earners. But 750,000 taxpayers would be affected. While that’s only 3 percent of those who report business income, that tiny group would see tax increases that cost $500 billion—or half the country’s reported business income.
That’s why Republicans argue that those business owners are more likely to spur economic growth if their rates remain at Bush administration levels. A lot of money is at stake.
Either way, Congress should make up its mind and not let all the cuts expire due to gridlock as usual.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Aurora Sentinel, Sept. 23, on federal prosecutors disregarding the state’s marijuana laws:
The fate of a Highlands Ranch man accused of illegally growing marijuana inside his house weighs heavily on all Colorado residents.
You might not know Christopher Bartkowicz by name, but you almost certainly know his predicament. He’s the man who got in front of Channel 9 News cameras in February and bragged all about how happy he was to be growing medical marijuana in a state that allowed such a thing.
Days later, federal drug agents arrested him and asked that felony federal drug charges be filed against him.
There’s no arguing that Bartkowicz appeared at the very least flip during his TV interview about his newfound career as a suburban pot farmer, seemingly cavalier about sticking his thumb in the eye of law enforcers.
So it wasn’t a total surprise that federal drug agents would track Bartkowicz down to at least find out just what was going on inside his Highlands Ranch home.
But what federal officials did was beyond the pale in leveling an unethical low blow to Bartkowicz and all Colorado residents by completely disregarding Colorado’s controversial, fledgling medical marijuana law.
They can’t do that. Last week, federal prosecutors were arguing that Bartkowicz’ lawyers should be prohibited from even bringing the state medical-marijuana law to the court’s attention, preferring to push through federal drug charges and the case on its surface. It’s a huge slap in the face to every Colorado voter and to even a sense of justice.
Whether Bartkowicz is genuine in saying that the state’s medical marijuana law was the impetus for his horticultural development isn’t the point. It’s for a judge and jury to decided whether he followed the law. What’s important is that Bartkowicz or anyone else could reasonably assume that state law created a change in how marijuana could be grown, distributed and used.
Federal officials are choosing to disregard this law, not based on solid legal principals, but because some federal drug officials simply don’t like the idea.
That goes against our vital principal of being a rule of law and makes Colorado a place where the law enforcers rule, a dangerous and unnerving development.
Attorney General Eric Holder was remiss in calling federal prosecutors off of this case, allowing Colorado to sort this out before federal officials became part of the issue, especially in light of previous announcement that the Obama administration would do just that for the handful of states struggling with this issue.
It doesn’t mean that Colorado should just be a free-for-all when it comes to marijuana regulation, but it’s absolutely atrocious that federal officials would so wantonly disregard the change in Colorado law. This is not a case of a state violating the U.S. Constitution nor the rights it bestows upon citizens. It’s a case where attitudes about marijuana are evolving and laws across the country are beginning to reflect that, not unlike the rise and fall of Prohibition.
It could well be that commonsense will prevail in the United States and marijuana will go the way of hard liquor and cigarettes, becoming taxed and regulated. As it did during the end of Prohibition, decriminalization took the industry out of the hands of brutal, sometimes murderous criminals and turned it over to an industry that supports a vast number of jobs and taxes.
What a boon it would be to the United States and all of North America to take this industry out of the hands of ruthless Mexican and South American thugs and gangsters, realizing that no amount of money, spin or effort will ever end the widespread use of marijuana in this country or any other.
Whether any or all of that comes to pass is a matter for every Colorado resident, U.S. citizen and their elected representatives. It’s by no means a place for the federal government take the matter up on its own in some effort to effect personal agendas or desired outcomes.
Congress, the Obama administration and the Colorado Legislature need rein in federal officials immediately, and starting with those involved with the Bartkowicz case is the perfect place to start.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Tribune, Sept. 28, on State House candidate Bob Boswell’s solicitation of lobbyists:
Some may say it was a rookie mistake.
But we think a move by Colorado House District 50 candidate Bob Boswell to solicit campaign funds from lobbyists is downright disturbing.
Boswell, the Republican candidate seeking to unseat incumbent Democrat Jim Riesberg, sent a letter to about 50 Denver-area lobbyists asking them to contribute to his campaign. The letter, in part, stated:
“I am going to win this race. The opportunity for you to align yourselves and your client with the next Representative of House District 50 is now.”
Boswell’s letter may technically be legal, but it is still a serious ethical departure that needs to be questioned. Soliciting money directly from lobbyists hints at impropriety, and just barely falls out of the legal parameters, which prevent campaigns from asking lobbyists for money during the legislative session.
It’s also interesting that cozying up to lobbyists is a serious departure from Boswell’s political philosophy of “throw the bums out.” Boswell has long advocated for serious limits on lobbyists, and has even advocated outlawing them.
In a guest column printed in the Greeley Tribune on July 23, 2008, Boswell wrote: “Scumbag lobbyists working for everyone from the Boy Scouts to the Peoples’ Republic of China send Democrats and Republicans lots of money. We, the people, cannot compete in the marketplace to hire lobbyists and buy politicians.”
In another guest column printed Dec. 9, 2007, Boswell wrote: “Our leaders are beholden to interest groups (aka bribery and/or extortion). Yet you and I are still the power in this country. Our votes are the only road to positive change. New leaders could accept real reform. If they don’t, then in two years we fire them and try again. Entrenched corruption can only be cured at the ballot box.
“We should: Outlaw lobbying as an industry. The argument that a billionaire’s First Amendment rights are infringed unless he or she can legally buy a senator is despicable.”
We are also a bit bothered by the fact that in his letter to lobbyists, Boswell said polls show he is ahead in the race. However, when questioned about this later, the candidate said he hadn’t actually seen the poll but had heard of it. If you can’t present the poll, conducted by a reputable source, then don’t be quoting it.
Look, we all know candidates take money from lobbyists. Even if we don’t like it, it is legal.
But to go out and directly solicit funds, saying “align with me” now, is beyond good judgment and good politicking. Bob Boswell should know better.
Editorial:
