A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, June 9, on recent stories about U.S. soldiers upset about Delta Airlines charging fees for excess baggage:
Delta Airlines and several others beat a hasty retreat this week after coming under attack from some U.S. soldiers upset about the airline’s fees for excess baggage.
It was the only sensible strategic action for the airline, which because of its policies on extra luggage, charged military personnel returning from overseas hundreds of dollars apiece just to get to their base with their Army-ordered gear.
The attack on Delta was actually a complaint posted in a YouTube video Tuesday by two Army Reserve staff sergeants who were on their way home from a year’s deployment in Afghanistan. They said many in their unit had four bags, as they were ordered to bring. On a flight from Baltimore to Atlanta, 14 members of their 36-man unit were charged $200 apiece for their fourth bags.
After the video went viral, Delta quickly revamped its policies, allowing active-duty military personnel four bags with no extra charge. United Airlines did the same, and American Airlines said it will now allow up to five bags for those in the military.
The changes are welcome. Americans who have served their country in dangerous places shouldn’t have to pay extra to get themselves and their gear home.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, June 13, on the debt ceiling:
The clock continues to tick down to an Aug. 2 deadline for Congress to raise the debt ceiling or face defaulting on its financial obligations. The longer it ticks, the more it sounds like a time bomb.
Our federal government is $14.3 trillion in debt. Social Security and Medicare need serious reform to meet their obligations. The weak U.S. economy is teetering on the brink of recession again. Three Wall Street financial rating agencies have warned they could downgrade U.S. bonds if lawmakers can’t defuse the fiscal time bomb.
And—no surprise here—Democrats and Republicans continue to stick to party-line positions.
Republicans want deep cuts in spending. Democrats respond that deep cuts will worsen the unemployment rate. Democrats say cuts should be accompanied by revenue increases, primarily by closing tax loopholes.
Republicans see that as raising taxes.
Unfortunately, semantics won’t end the impasse. Nor will jockeying for political position for the 2012 election, which appears to be the strategy of both parties.
Breaking the impasse will happen only when both sides awaken to the reality that neither side has all the answers and that no solutions should be “off the table.”
Congress must revisit the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, whose report last December outlined the many ways needed to get the country’s fiscal house in order over the next decade. The commission put everything on the table.
And though the commission’s feast isn’t palatable to all—given that it bypassed the shibboleths of both parties—it is the one plan that recognizes that one party’s road map won’t get us where we need to be.
As we’ve said before, the road to fiscal responsibility won’t be painless. But it needs to be sensible, which means we need our elected representatives to be sensible. Congress needs to stop playing politics with the country’s future.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, June 11, on the concealed carry law:
Regardless of where the Colorado Supreme Court comes down on a legal challenge of the University of Colorado’s campus gun ban, we believe state lawmakers ought to clarify the law.
The crux of the dispute, argued Wednesday before the Supreme Court, is whether university regents have the legal authority to prohibit weapons on school property.
Colorado’s Concealed Carry Act of 2003 wasn’t explicit about that, and it should be. Universities ought to have the power, just as those who run K-12 schools and county courthouses do, to decide whether guns are safe on their properties.
Tweaking the law would resolve such questions once and for all and leave the decision where it belongs—with those who run the universities.
Lawyers for CU argued before high court justices that the state constitution, laws and previous court decisions already leave that discretion to the university.
While the 2003 statute prohibits local governments from limiting concealed-carry rights, the university argued its board of regents isn’t a local government, but rather an arm of state government that is not similarly restrained by the law.
A lower court that ruled against the university reasoned that if state lawmakers had intended for the regents to have that power, they would have explicitly included universities in the list of entities exempted.
It’s a persuasive point.
But we also think school leaders are best suited to decide whether it is appropriate for their institution to allow students to have guns.
Colorado law says, “The governing board of any state institution of higher education has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the safety and welfare of students, employees, and property, (and) to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the governance of the respective institutions.”
Setting rules to ensure the safety and welfare of students and employees should include the right to decide whether to allow guns on campus, and state law ought to expressly say so.
Nor would such a declaration by the legislature put the university on questionable constitutional ground.
Last year, in striking down handgun restrictions imposed by Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court said an individual’s gun rights do not undercut state and local government bans in places such as schools and colleges.
However, it also was clear that institutions of higher education could run into constitutional trouble if they don’t have explicit state authority to enact such restrictions.
It would be wise for the legislature to spell out this power for Colorado’s colleges and universities so there is no doubt they have the ability to regulate gun possession for the safety of all who frequent their campuses.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Tribune, June 7, on state supreme court’s water rights ruling:
Some of the biggest battles fought in Colorado have been over water, and it seems in the last few decades, agriculture has often come out the loser.
That’s why we were pleased with the recent ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, which gave a small victory to those who hold agricultural water rights.
The case involved the United Water and Sanitation District, which was seeking to acquire agricultural water rights held by two eastern Colorado reservoir and irrigation companies. The water was to be used in Arapahoe County, which planned to pull water out of the South Platte River and convert its use from agricultural to municipal.
The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling by stating that the irrigation companies’ historic consumptive use of their water needs to be considered when switching water use from agricultural to municipal.
It’s the first case of its kind to reach the high court, but probably not the last. Municipalities along the Front Range are desperately seeking water rights to fill growing demands in cities. Without it, some cities can’t grow.
We’ve seen the negative impacts of such water grabs right here in Weld County.
Agricultural producers, struggling financially, have occasionally sold their agricultural water rights to municipalities such as Thornton, Arvada and Denver. This means some or all of their land goes fallow, and occasionally causes problems with weeds, dust and erosion. Plus, these unused parcels can just be an eyesore.
We know some municipalities are in worse shape water-wise than others. We do know city officials are beginning to look at more creative ways to find water, such as leasing water-rights short-term from farmers and many conservation programs that can save millions of gallons of water annually.
Agriculture is essential to not only to the economy of Weld County, but the entire state. And water is essential to agriculture, livestock producers and dairies. Producers shouldn’t have to constantly be in an arm-wrestling match over water rights.
We understand this ruling will not solve all of agriculture’s problems. It helps protect some of the agricultural water rights on the South Platte River, and may help to keep a few more acres in production in this particular instance.
But we hope it signals an attitude, at least in the courts, that protecting agricultural water rights should be a priority in Colorado.
Editorial:
