A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Jan. 4, on the decision by the U.S. Postal Service to issue “forever” stamps:
They say all good things must end.
And some things that are a pain in the neck end, as well.
The U.S. Postal Service announced last week that all new stamps will be “forever” stamps beginning this year.
This is a welcome change for anybody who dreads scrounging for 1- and 2-cent stamps any time postal rates change.
The Postal Service, like many industries, faces increasing challenges in the electronic age. Many people have ditched writing letters in favor of e-mail, instant messaging, text messaging or other services. Vast numbers of people have opted to pay bills and handle banking tasks online instead of by mail.
Still others have switched to carriers such as FedEx and UPS for delivering packages.
According to the Associated Press, the Postal Service lost $8.5 billion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, even after trimming more than 100,000 jobs in recent years, and estimates it will lose $6 billion to $7 billion this year.
It is obvious that other changes must be made to keep the Postal Service running.
So at a time when there is so much serious competition, anything the Postal Service can do to make its service more convenient is a step in the right direction.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Jan. 2, on the need to eliminate Congressional earmarks:
A key priority this year in Washington must be getting the federal government’s fiscal house in order, and that process will have to include reining in the many sneaky ways lawmakers fund pet projects.
Though an earmark ban failed in the lame-duck Senate, the debate over stopping the abusive spending ought to continue. That should include closer scrutiny of what are essentially back-door earmarks.
Earmarks allow lawmakers in Congress to direct funds to favored projects without approval from the executive branch. For instance, a lawmaker can get around a denial by the Department of Transportation to build an unneeded road by inserting the project’s appropriation into unrelated legislation.
We understand that not all earmarks constitute poor policy. But because they allow lawmakers to play politics with taxpayer money, we aren’t fans of the process, and we supported the proposed ban of the practice.
A recent New York Times story details that, in fact, many lawmakers are winning billions of taxpayer dollars for projects by the process of “lettermarking” or “phonemarking.” A lawmaker who oversees a government agency’s budget sends a letter or makes a call to the agency’s brass and requests that his project be approved.
A third form is even less direct. By merely suggesting where a lawmaker thinks money should be spent, or “soft earmarking,” the finagling is even more difficult to track.
But it can be just as difficult for agency heads to deny powerful lawmakers’ nods.
Patrick Cronin, a former administrator at the Agency for International Development, explained it to The Times this way: Lawmakers “will tell you that they wanted money to go to a particular university or group or the next time you wouldn’t get the funding in the budget you wanted. So it’s true that you can ignore some soft earmarks, but others you have to take more seriously.”
At least earmarks occur within the legislative appropriations debate. Furthermore, earmarks must be disclosed.
The Christian Science Monitor has analyzed federal spending and determined that traditional earmarks can account for as much as 2 percent of the budget in a fiscal cycle. That meant $50 billion in 2005. Soft earmarks, lettermarks and phonemarks easily add billions more.
Advocates for using the backdoor channel argue it is reasonable for a lawmaker to wish to help his district, and we aren’t unsympathetic to that position. Drawing attention to a district’s needs can be a reasonable part of the process.
But agency heads ought to be free to direct money to projects that are deemed truly necessary and not feel pressured into wasteful or duplicate spending.
Editorial:
STATE:
Canon City Daily Record, Dec. 30, on the need for hunting ethics to match state law:
Hunting ethics and hunting laws are not always one in the same. But a recent bear kill shows the need for the two to align in Colorado. A Craig man in November killed a 703-pound black bear that might be a state record.
According to a Craig Daily Press story, the man spotted the bear’s tracks and, upon returning later, found fresh tracks that led to the bear’s cave. The man got a bear tag, and along with three friends went to the location the next morning and waited, hoping the bear would emerge. When the animal did not, the hunter went into the cave, meeting the bear eye to eye. Two shots later, the hunter had bagged a trophy he had sought for his whole life.
But the manner of the kill—entering a bear’s den—has Colorado Division of Wildlife managers discussing whether to change hunting rules.
This hunter did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. But in the unwritten rules of hunting, he did.
As the Division of Wildlife spokesman told the Craig Daily Press, “There are many things with ethics of hunting that are not regulated. For example, duck hunters will tell you that you don’t shoot ducks on a pond—you wait until they are in flight. You don’t shoot turkeys out of a roost, and you don’t shoot bears in their dens.”
Sometimes it takes a case such as this to make an unwritten rule a written one. Several states do not allow bear to be hunted in their dens. Colorado, too, should have such a law.
Editorial:
———
The Coloradoan, Jan. 3, on the committee that will draw Colorado’s new congressional districts:
Colorado lawmakers have good intentions by creating a joint legislative committee that will draw Colorado’s new congressional lines.
Let’s hope good intentions result in sound policy and cost savings to taxpayers.
Last week, state Rep. B.J. Nikkel of Loveland, a Republican, was named to serve on the 10-person committee. Nikkel said her goal is to ensure that lawmakers put forth a plan that is fair and places the best interests of Coloradans above political bickering.
Those are lofty, yet reachable goals. If lawmakers heard anything from the last election, they should have heard the message that voters have tired of policy that benefits politicians rather than people.
Certainly, Republicans and Democrats have something to gain and lose when the districts are redrawn. But if the joint legislative committee is not able to set aside political squabbling to agree on the redistricting, taxpayers will have to foot the bill for a Special Session of the state Legislature this summer, which can be costly.
Worse, Colorado has seen its redistricting issues in the past decided by the courts rather than those elected to make the decision.
The joint committee is expected to visit all seven of Colorado’s congressional districts and report back to the Legislature by mid-April. We support this approach and hope for the best.
Editorial:
