A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Aurora Sentinel, Nov. 29, on the state of a stem cell bill in Congress:
In yet another reminder that it’s difficult to tell whether this is a lame-duck Congress or just the end of a lame Congress, Denver Congresswoman Diana DeGette told reporters she thinks she has the votes to pass a stem-cell research bill.
If you’re like most folks, you probably wonder what this is all about. Just after President Barack Obama took office in 2008, he very publicly used executive power to wipe away the political machinations of former President George W. Bush.
Bush and the preceding Republican Congress used the stem-cell research issue as a political ploy in the endless debate over abortion.
Despite Obama’s efforts, a federal court ruled later that a 1996 law prohibiting the use of tax dollars on stem-cell research trumps the executive pen. Despite that, Democrats failed to use their huge majorities in both the House and the Senate to pass a bill that has long had the support of nearly every single Democrat and people such as Nancy Reagan, Sen. Orrin Hatch and former Sen. Bill Frist.
Now, because of how ineffective the Democrat-controlled Congress has been during the past two years, it looks like once again that the U.S. government will continue the Galileo-like mistreatment of stem cell research scientists, and that using this promising new science to heal millions of critically ill children and adults has been pushed even further into the future.
Stem cell medicine allows doctors to take unique types of human cells and coax them into becoming any number of specialized cells, such as those that produce insulin, brain cells, skin cells and others. The medical application of stem cells allows physicians to help sick and injured bodies regenerate themselves to cure disease. It’s what America has long dreamed about: cures instead of treatments. It’s not science fiction; it’s science in action. But it’s difficult to understand. That makes stem cell research an easy target for the hysterical voodoo crowd, just like the ones who continue to pedal famously failed “personhood” amendments here in Colorado.
Critics of embryonic stem-cell research fail or refuse to understand what embryonic stem cells are, what they’re used for, and most importantly, what they’re not. They’re not babies and will never become babies. They are a mass of cells tendered from a human egg outside a human body. They have all the ability to produce a human being as does a well-meaning stork.
What stem cells can produce is a cure for children who die long, needless and painful deaths from scourges such as diabetes. They have the apparent ability to allow doctors to keep Alzheimer’s disease from robbing our country’s elderly of their minds. They can provide cures nothing short of miraculous even compared to amazing things medicine can already do.
So now, as this ineffectual Congress confronts a long list of important issues before adjourning for all of history, Americans must depend on these representatives to complete the work on what should have been done easily and long ago. The chances for success look slim.
Editorial:
———
Steamboat Pilot & Today, Nov. 28, on travelers living with new Transportation Security Administration measures:
Travelers departing from Yampa Valley Regional Airport in Hayden this winter may be spared the controversial new full-body scan, but an intimate pat-down by Transportation Security Administration personnel isn’t out of the question.
The fervor that enveloped the nation the past two weeks regarding TSA’s new security measures may best be described as a head-on collision between the fundamental American principle of civil liberties and the realities of living in an age of terrorism.
Routt County’s only commercial airport doesn’t yet have one of the new full-body scanners decried by critics for capturing nude-like images of travelers. YVRA passengers are, however, subject to the new pat-down procedure that can include touching close to genitals.
As a resort community with an economy indirectly dependent upon the public’s confidence in air travel, it’s perhaps easier to digest the new security procedures if, in fact, they increase security. But who’s to say that they do? TSA and Homeland Security officials say the new procedures are in response to classified intelligence about potential future terrorist attacks as well as a response to so-called underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear during a Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit last year.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been mostly understanding of increased security measures if they think they’re justified. But the TSA, which was created in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, continues to fail miserably in the way of public relations. In the latest episode, the federal agency declined to specify what the new security procedures entailed, instead leaving it up to passengers and then the media to spread the word themselves. Adding insult to injury in the eyes of many Americans, TSA announced last week that some government officials are allowed to skip the new procedures.
Much of the criticism heaped upon the TSA since its formation is no fault but its own. But there is a way out. Better hiring practices and more extensive training for TSA screeners is Step 1. Timely and honest communications with the traveling public is Step 2. Re-examination of existing policies to ensure the most serious security threats are being addressed is Step 3.
The American people can help by understanding that flying comes with some inconveniences. Perhaps it’s ultimately in the best interest of our safety that those inconveniences now include “enhanced” security procedures. But who’s to know until we see some evidence or research to back the worthiness of the new measures? Fortunately, unconvinced Americans have an easy way out in the interim: They don’t have to fly.
Editorial:
STATE:
The Denver Post, Nov. 30, on reforming the state liquor laws:
Pour us a pint of reform, bartender.
It’s time for another round in what has become Colorado’s yearly Battle of the Bottle, where liquor stores and convenience stores debate about who should be allowed to sell full-strength beer.
We admire the cleverness of the latest twist: A state law in effect next year will force the owners of restaurants and bars to stop selling beer that contains low levels of alcohol.
The law, the brainchild of lobbyists for convenience and grocery stores, means that the local pub will no longer be able to sell the 3.2 percent beer that the stores are limited to selling. That means, for example, Irish pubs would no longer be able to sell pints of Murphy’s Irish Stout because of its low alcohol content.
The new law is an attempt to force legislators to deal with Colorado’s continued Prohibition-era hangover and overhaul the state’s archaic liquor laws.
Perhaps putting a former brewpub entrepreneur into the governor’s office will finally spur such reform.
Technically, bars, restaurants and liquor stores in Colorado never should have been able to sell the lighter versions of brands like Shiner, Amstel, Heineken, Michelob and Shipyard. Their licenses allow them to sell spirits, wine and beers that fall into the “malt liquor” category: brew stronger than 4 percent alcohol by volume or 3.2 percent by weight. But restaurants and bars have been getting away with offering the lighter beers for years, according to The Denver Post’s Jessica Fender.
However, convenience and grocery stores are restricted to selling only beer at or below that threshold, thanks to rules aimed at limiting the flow of alcohol to the general public, according to Fender’s story. Grocers and convenience store owners have argued, convincingly, for years that being forced to sell only the lower-octane beer hurts their bottom line.
Likewise, liquor-store owners are confined by other state laws that limit their presence to a single location. They also are prevented from negotiating deals with wholesalers.
Starting in January, state regulators will be required to enforce the 3.2 percent limitations in bars, and beer makers will have to test their offerings and document alcohol contents.
A possibly dangerous side effect of the new regulatory climate is that it won’t be as easy for bar patrons who want to drink more responsibly.
We would rather see beer, wine and liquor sold in Colorado in a free market without all of the strange entanglements that have been added over the years, but we understand there is no simple, pain-free solution to the present problem. The out-of-date laws have created a unique environment of winners and losers for so many years that changing it now would cause lots of upheaval.
We’ve suggested that lawmakers form a panel of stakeholders representing the various special interests to suggest fair ways to bring liquor laws up to date.
Forming such a panel would seem a perfect task for Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper, and we hope one of the new governor’s accomplishments is working with all sides to finally bring some market reason to Colorado’s suds.
Editorial:
———
The Gazette, Nov. 29, on how an immigration law in Colorado would hurt the state’s economy:
Republicans may be off to a horrible start. At a meeting of the Colorado Republican Study Committee in Denver on Monday, Sen.-elect Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, announced his plan to kick off the session in January with an immigration law like Arizona’s SB1070. It’s a proposal for big-government control. It would burden taxpayers while stifling production and trade. It is a bad idea on too many counts to enumerate.
Examine the reaction of Steve Schuck, a leading force in Colorado conservative politics and a major supporter of former congressman, presidential candidate and gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo—arguably the country’s leading crusader against illegal immigration.
After learning of Lambert’s plan for a radical immigration bill, Schuck sent an e-mail to Sen. Bill Cadman, a Colorado Springs Republican and chairman of the minority caucus, and copied a long list of ranking Republicans. It asks Cadman: “Can you please get your caucus members to table their individual agendas and focus totally on the damned economy? Kent (Lambert) is a great guy, but making headlines by coming out of the chute with an immigration bill as our initial, signature effort appears to evidence some serious tone deafness.”
Nicely stated. Our economy needs help. That means we need more trade and production of goods, services and commodities—not less. We cannot fix the economy by impeding the creation of wealth. We do not magically wind up with more production of goods, services and commodities by policing the residential status of professionals and workers with brown skin and broken English who help provide goods, services, commodities and trade. We do not enable prosperity by paying to incarcerate workers, at huge taxpayer expense, for the noncriminal infraction of lacking permission to reside here. We do not facilitate production and trade by placing the mothers and fathers of children in jail because of a suspected civil dispute with the federal government. Sure, immigration is a mess. But the solution will be increased quotas, enhanced border control and other reasonable federal reforms that favor prosperity and order.
The Arizona law is a legislated economic boondoggle. A study by Arizona-based Elliott D. Pollack & Co. found that Arizona has lost $141 million just from the meetings and conventions that went elsewhere, so far, to protest SB1070. During the next two to three years, canceled conventions may cost the state $253 million in economic output and will negatively affect 2,800 jobs. The report estimates the law will cost Arizona $86 million in lost wages over the next two to three years. That will put more workers on state aid, adding to the cost of the law. It is legislated poverty, all about creating expense while reducing production, consumption and trade.
The tangible losses pertaining to meetings and conventions don’t include the loss of leisure tourists, the costs of soured trade relations and the costs of enforcing the new law. Don’t be surprised if Arizonans soon tire of paying for poverty politics and demand a repeal of SB1070.
It’s even worse to propose this law in Colorado. We aren’t overwhelmed with immigration problems, and the voters have spoken. If immigration concerns were paramount, we would have elected Tancredo as governor.
Reports from PBS and other left-leaning media organizations show credible direct links between the passage of SB1070 and private prison corporations. Benson, Ariz., City Manager Glenn Nichols told PBS that two men tried to sell him on hosting a private prison for illegal immigrants before SB1070 became news. How would they fill it? By getting the Legislature to pass a tough new immigration law.
Activist media organizations are hard to trust, but the tie-in to private prisons makes sense. If true, the Arizona immigration law is a government redistribution scheme designed to take money from ordinary taxpayers and channel it to powerful special interests that fund politicians.
Arizona’s immigration mistake is costly and senseless. It’s a ticket to poverty, at a time when politicians should obsess about allowing prosperity. It’s the least conservative idea a Republican could pitch.
Editorial:
