A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Jan. 6, on Congress’s proposed legislation to redefine what is confidential information:
Leave it to Congress to attempt to stanch the flow of blood from a carotid hemorrhage by applying pressure to the radial artery.
The federal government has all the authority it needs under the existing Espionage Act to prosecute those responsible for the leaks of classified materials that enraged the U.S. and foreign governments late last year. It even has authority to go after the creator of WikiLeaks, a noncitizen.
Yet both the U.S. Senate and House have offered new legislation that attempts to further limit liberties inscribed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But the real problem is that too much material is classified in the first place because too many federal employees have authority to do so, and too many other federal employees have access to it.
But instead of trying to clean up its own house, Congress looks elsewhere.
Senate Bill 4004 amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to add new definitions to what constitutes confidential information and who can be punished for disseminating it.
In short, the proposed changes would permit punishment of virtually anyone caught with classified material no matter how innocent the circumstances or how hard that individual or entity worked to shelter the government from harm.
The sponsors acknowledged in their remarks while introducing the proposed law that U.S. news media, the New York Times in particular, took great pains to remove details from WikiLeaks memos that could have harmed individuals in this country and in foreign lands. And they said that no presidential administration has ever prosecuted a member of the news media under the Espionage Act because there has never been a need to do so.
So why now attempt to close that barn door, when the problem the government faces is clearly within its own horse stall?
In a free society, the public and the news media that are an extension of that public need to be able to evaluate deficiencies in government operations or abuses of government authority.
Further information that might come into their possession and to act in a responsible way, especially when the information might reveal intimidation of private citizens is not the answer, when the problem lies within government itself.
Editorial:
———
Colorado Springs Gazette, Jan. 10, on heated political rhetoric in the wake of the shootings in Arizona:
As U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords fought for her life, after a psychotic shot her point-blank in the head, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik reiterated his despair over the state of contemporary political rhetoric. He described public vitriol in Arizona, where he works in Tucson as Pima County sheriff, by people who are angry over Giffords’ support of health care “and other things.”
“Some of the vitriol got a lot of people agitated… but, you’re talking about irrational behavior here and there is no way you can rationalize irrational behavior,” Dupnik said.
Dupnik, 75, has been in law enforcement for more than 50 years and fears that political anger on the radio, TV and the Internet are making the country violent.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that when a number of people night and day try to inflame the public, that there’s going to be some consequences to doing that and I think it’s irresponsible to do that,” Dupnik said.
Dupnik insists that it used to be different in the United States. “I grew up in a country that was totally different than the country that we have today. We didn’t have this kind of nonsense going on and it used to be that politicians from different parties could sit down, forget about their ideology, and work on the country’s problems.”
This is a country best known for political vitriol—a country that has battled over slavery, abortion, civil rights and taxes over the course of 200 years. And the attempted assassination of Giffords was not like something Dupnik never saw growing up. He has lived through the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., two attempted assassinations of President Gerald Ford, the attempted assassinations of President Ronald Reagan and Alabama Gov. George Wallace—just to name a few.
The massacre in Tucson was, by most appearances, the work of a deranged person who snapped. There is little to suggest it was inspired by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or anyone else in the business of political pot stirring.
But that doesn’t mean the sheriff’s words should be taken lightly. We have become a nation of political soreheads who too often forget that maintaining a free republic is more important than winning debates or political turf wars.
Do not blame Saturday’s carnage on mean-spirited and hostile political rhetoric, coming from both halves of the political spectrum. Blame a deranged individual. But do take the opportunity to reflect on the fact that this great country is nothing more than the sum of the citizens who comprise it. When thinking of this tragedy, keep in mind 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green. She’s the little girl who had been elected to student council and just wanted to meet the woman who represented her in Congress. Green was born on Sept. 11, 2001—the day evil foreign enemies attacked our country.
On the day Green was born, it was hard for most Americans to see and acknowledge their differences. On that day, and for a few weeks to come, we were one nation under God. Let this tragic event restore peace and civility to our discourse. Let it happen in the name of Christina Green and the others killed in Tucson.
Editorial:
STATE:
The Denver Post, Jan. 7, on recent decision to reduce the amount Xcel Energy can charge customers in Colorado:
The recent decision by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to reduce the amount Xcel Energy can charge its customers to pay for the utility’s pricey smart-grid experiment in Boulder is a victory for consumers.
There is little doubt in our minds that developing smart-grid systems is the way forward in modernizing the nation’s electrical grid. The systems, once fully implemented, have the potential to revolutionize how consumers use electricity and how utilities manage it. But having Xcel’s 1.1 million Colorado customers cover the bill for a costs that ended up being three times as much as first estimated would have been an unfair burden for rate payers to bear.
To be sure, customers still will be footing a large part of Xcel’s costs in developing SmartGridCity, an effort to use computers to manage electrical distribution.
The PUC decision means two- thirds of the $44.5 million that Xcel spent on the project still will be included in the utility’s rate base. That’s no small chunk of change.
It’s also not the whole cost of the project. Back in 2008, the entire cost was estimated at $100 million, with Xcel’s share being some $15 million. The rest was to be paid by companies that were partners in the project.
It is the escalation in the utility’s share, which rate payers were being asked to pay for, that is at issue.
We have been concerned for some time now about whether Xcel’s investments in the project were prudent. The company has contended in PUC filings that costs increased because of added expenses in laying fiber-optic cable and for software.
And we understand that cost estimates at the front end of a project can be off, especially in an effort that breaks new ground in both concept and scope. But asking rate payers to foot a bill three times as large as originally pitched is a stretch, especially since watchdog groups and others have criticized the project for what they said was a lack of strong cost controls.
“It is an experiment, and Xcel can’t ask ratepayers to assume all the risk,” William Levis, director of the state Office of Consumer Counsel, told The Denver Post in August.
After the PUC decision, Levis said he was pleased with the result.
As part of the SmartGridCity project, Xcel installed some 24,000 smart meters in Boulder and put down a million feet of fiber-optic cable.
The SmartGridCity project has allowed the utility to monitor in real time the electrical system and detect outages and potential outages.
It also has given customers detailed information about their electrical usage so as to encourage conservation.
It has been an interesting project, and we do think that, eventually, some form of a smart-grid system will be widely adopted.
However, at this point, we’re glad Colorado’s Xcel customers will not be on the hook for the full cost of the utility’s experiment.
Editorial:
———
The Greeley Tribune, Jan. 8, on the need for state lawmakers to work together:
The large-scale changes in political party dominance nationally have not played out quite the same in Colorado.
Despite challenges from Republicans and one Constitutionalist party candidate, we still have a Democratic governor and senator, several incumbents retained their seats—with the obvious exception of Republican Cory Gardner winning in the 4th Congressional District—and we still have a Democrat-controlled State Senate.
Where there was a change was in the State House. Voters gave that lawmaking body over to Republicans, albeit slightly: 33 Republicans to 32 Democrats.
What that means for Colorado is bipartisanship will likely get more than lip service in state government.
As the Colorado General Assembly kicks off its 2011 session this week, the makeup of that body will ensure a fairly great amount of bipartisan legislation will pass.
That doesn’t mean there still won’t be fighting between the parties, especially on controversial issues such as the tax exemptions that were repealed by Democrats last session and funding priorities given the projected $1.1 billion shortfall.
We saw a preview of this at a Legislative Forum, held recently at the Denver Press Club. There, leaders from both the House and the Senate, talked first about cooperation and the need for working in a bipartisan fashion, then quickly disintegrated to quips and accusations as these four men addressed specific issues such as taxes and education.
Still, as House Minority Leader Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, said in a recent meeting with The Tribune editorial board, the 33-32 split just about ensures bipartisan support for most legislation. Without it, bills will fail.
“Every single bill will have bipartisan support,” Pace said. Pace also pointed out that in 2010, 70 percent of the bills that passed had bipartisan sponsorship.
That’s a significant figure and helps prove party infighting in Colorado does not run as deep as it does nationally.
We know there will be disagreement among the two parties. But reality is, they will have to cooperate to get anything done. And, with only four months to accomplish it all, our lawmakers are going to have to get down to business quickly.
Their task ahead is daunting. Balancing the state budget with predicted shortfalls is going to be a great challenge.
This coupled with the limits our state Constitution places on how the general fund is disbursed will require creative thinking and open minds about what exactly can and should be cut.
They also face other issues: Improving and funding K-12 education; repairing and improving the transportation infrastructure; deciding whether public funding of higher education will be possible; and of course, redistricting and reapportionment, and the redrawing of Congressional and state House district boundaries following the 2010 census. This has been controversial in the past and could be again.
We are lucky to have good representation in northern Colorado. Several of our local legislators have leadership positions this year, including House Majority Whip B.J. Nikkel, R-Loveland, who will also serve on the Joint Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting, and several other lawmakers who will chair committees and hold key posts.
What we do hope is our elected legislators can find a way to effectively debate the issues without falling into the pit of accusations and name-calling. As Pace said, they need to find a way to “disagree, without being disagreeable.”
Editorial:
