A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, May 29, on restricting U.S. travel to Cuba:
More than a half century after Fidel Castro imposed his suffocating brand of socialism in Cuba, the U.S. government is still pretending that restricting trade and travel to the island will somehow promote Cuban freedom.
But at least the Obama administration is slowly opening the door to greater access by Americans, in tacit recognition of an utterly failed policy over 11 administrations, even if it still isn’t willing to lift restrictions altogether.
We happen to think Washington should restrict travel to another country only when Americans’ physical safety is at risk, not as a form of economic punishment. Such punishment is rarely effective, as the experience with Cuba shows all too well.
Travel to Cuba has been tightly controlled for decades, and all but banned for much of the period. But a thaw began during the Clinton administration, which allowed so-called people-to-people contacts that involved tours with an educational, religious or other approved focus.
Yet even that modest relaxation of travel standards was rolled back in 2004 under President George W. Bush.
Now the Obama administration has released rules that allow travel along Clinton-era lines, although with even fewer restrictions. The Associated Press reported recently that Treasury Department guidelines say that people-to-people tours must guarantee a “full-time schedule of educational activities that will result in meaningful interaction” with Cubans, but there will no requirement to file an itinerary ahead of time.
If there is no need to file itineraries, however—and no apparent intention to monitor activities by tour groups—then we’re inching closer than ever to full-blown freedom for U.S. travelers.
So why not simply drop the fig leaf and let tourists be tourists? Why should Americans only be allowed in Cuba if they keep to a “full-time schedule of educational activities”? Does anyone still seriously think that such restrictions have a positive influence in nudging the Cuban regime, now led by Fidel’s brother Raul, into liberalizing its economy, protecting civil liberties and establishing the rule of law? (Come to think of it, since when isn’t a simple stroll through a foreign city or village educational in its own right?)
The Cuban government reportedly believes as many as 500,000 Americans could visit the island under the new rules—second only to Canada in terms of tourists.
When loosening travel restrictions was proposed in January, the head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., responded by saying it “will not help foster a pro-democracy environment in Cuba. These changes will not aid in ushering in respect for human rights. And they certainly will not help the Cuban people free themselves from the tyranny that engulfs them.”
She’s probably right. But keeping the restrictions in place wouldn’t promote those goals, either. We’ve got 52 years of evidence to clinch the case.
Editorial:
———
The Durango Herald, May 25, on U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on California prison system:
The United States Supreme Court ruled May 23 that the state of California’s must dramatically reduce overcrowding in its prison system. The 5-4 decision immediately was decried by those concerned that it would set free thousands of dangerous criminals.
That is possible, but far from certain. In any case, it misses the larger issue: Government cannot simultaneously pander to antithetical interests—and nowhere is that more evident than with prisons.
The entire American prison system is founded on conflicting impulses. Everyone favors public safety and low crime rates. But often the loudest supporters of stiff prison sentences also the most strident advocates of low taxes. Those positions, if not mutually exclusive, certainly are conflicting.
The court’s ruling came in answer to two class-action lawsuits consolidated into a single case. One began as a 1990 challenge to conditions for prisoners with serious mental-health issues. The other is a 15-year-old case addressing prisoners’ medical needs.
The high court’s decision also follows other court decisions calling California’s prisons unconstitutionally overcrowded. The state’s prison system was built to house fewer than 80,000 inmates. When this case was argued, it held 142,000.
In the Monday ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted some of the results: prisoners held in spaces never meant for inmates, suicidal inmates kept in cages the size of telephone booths, 200 prisoners living in a gymnasium with two or three guards, 54 prisoners sharing a single toilet.
The court couched its ruling in terms of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.” That probably was its only option, given that there is no constitutional provision barring bad decision making. The fact is, though, the situation with California’s prisons is what happens when there is no connection between the demand for services and the taxes needed to pay for them. Other states are just as guilty, whether with prisons, education or other functions. That disconnect puts the public at risk on several levels. Prisons are just a particularly stark example.
The impulse to “lock ’em up and throw away the key” is at odds with public safety. Lack of funding multiplies the danger. All but a small handful of the most notorious convicts at some point will be released. What then? What habits or attitudes will they have picked up from conditions such as those in California prisons?
Basic human decency probably is not the answer. A pervasive meanness is more likely, along with a studied indifference to others’ suffering and a feral mindset.
Is that who we want in our communities? But absent the funds to properly house inmates—and offer counseling, mental-health treatment and education—that is pretty much what prisoners are being trained to become.
California often leads the nation—in pathologies as well as fashions and fads. This is one example the rest of the nation should learn from and avoid.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, May 29, on demise of state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights:
However the recent lawsuit to overturn the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights plays out in federal court, one thing is certain: Tackling TABOR by itself isn’t going to solve Colorado’s fiscal challenges.
The lawsuit was filed May 23 by a group of 34 plaintiffs that includes five Democratic state legislators—Rep. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, is the lead plaintiff—members of school boards and city councils, former University of Colorado President John Buechner and a pair of former Republican state lawmakers.
The group’s main contention is that TABOR deprives the state’s residents of “effective representative democracy” by subverting the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that states have a representative form of government; in other words, we elect representatives to govern us.
TABOR, the plaintiffs say, overturns that, essentially instituting direct democracy.
We’ll leave the merits of that argument, of course, to the courts.
But it’s been clear for years that TABOR, with its strict taxing and spending restrictions, has caused financial challenges for the state, its cities and counties, and its residents. Those challenges are even more apparent during recessions, as we’ve seen over the past couple of years.
But TABOR is not the only culprit. We, and many others, have argued for years that the state budget is out of balance because of quirky provisions in TABOR and an imbalance created by TABOR, the Gallagher Amendment and Amendment 23.
It’s difficult to keep track of all the proposals over the years to better balance the competing aims of the three constitutional amendments or even those proposed to deal with one or the other. But the imbalance is with us still.
Should the federal court throw out TABOR, state legislators still will have to deal with Gallagher and 23. If TABOR remains, they’re back to square one.
One day—and we can only hope it’s sooner rather than later—legislators will have to find a way to untangle the Gordian knot created by the three amendments.
Editorial:
———
The Pueblo Chieftain, May 30, on Rep. McInnis being cleared by state Supreme Court:
Former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis has been cleared of wrongdoing by an arm of the Colorado Supreme Court.
Mr. McInnis was accused by reporting in The Denver Post of plagiarism. At the time, he was seeking the Republican nomination for governor, and the allegation scuttled his campaign.
The allegation related to work that the Hasan Family Foundation of Pueblo awarded to him for $300,000 regarding Colorado water issues. The Post found that some of the work Mr. McInnis submitted was a verbatim copy of 20-year-old writings by Gregory Hobbs, now a justice on the high court recognized as its leading water expert.
Mr. McInnis blamed the plagiarism on Rolly Fischer, whom he had enlisted as an assistant for the project. Mr. Fisher said he believed the Hobbs writings were in the public domain.
The high court’s Attorney Regulation Counsel found that in 2005 “McInnis had instructed Mr. Fisher not to plagiarize any work in the articles he drafted.” The Counsel found that Mr. Fisher passed the Hobbs writings to Mr. McInnis without attributing them to Justice Hobbs.
This whole affair was a matter of pique on the part of the Hasan family, angered that Mr. McInnis did not endorse son Ali Hasan in his bid to gain the GOP nomination for state treasurer. Such is the darker side of politics.
Editorial:
