A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Aug. 20, on Obama’s order that reviews deportation cases of young people:
While many on the right are decrying last week’s decision by the Obama administration that could suspend deportation proceedings for thousands of young people who pose no threat to public safety, we believe it is a sensible policy.
Under the new policy, the secretary of Homeland Security can review, on a case-by-case basis, whether to stop deportation proceedings for people who are in the country illegally but pose no threat to national security or to public safety.
As The New York Times reported, the decision would, via administrative action taken by Janet Napolitano, help many intended beneficiaries of DREAM Act legislation that has been stalled in Congress for a decade.
The legislation, most recently re-introduced in the Senate by Colorado’s Michael Bennet, would grant U.S. citizenship for children of illegal immigrants after they complete a specified term in college or the military and pass a background check.
We have long favored passage of such legislation on the grounds that children should not be punished for their parents’ mistakes.
President Obama’s administrative order last week adheres to similar logic.
According to the Immigration Lawyers Association, the order would allow for review of cases involving people who are not criminals and have been in the country since childhood, have strong community ties, are veterans or relatives of persons in the armed services, are caregivers, have serious health issues, are victims of crime or otherwise have a strong basis for remaining in the United States.
The decision also could benefit committed couples in same-sex relationships.
Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues, told The New York Times that the policy will also bring at least a temporary end to the deportations of gay people legally married to their same-sex American citizen partners, and it may extend to other people in same-sex partnerships.
Of course, it didn’t take long for the anti-illegal immigration firebrands to come out in full-throated uproar.
“This plan amounts to backdoor amnesty for hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of illegal aliens,” Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said.
“The Obama administration has again made clear its plan to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants,” Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said. “The administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them.”
In fact, Obama has been much tougher than his predecessors in terms of tightening our border security and deporting non-citizens.
Congress continues to fail the country by refusing to adopt comprehensive immigration reform policy.
A plan that offers administrative relief instead of turmoil to people whose sole crime is being in the country illegally strikes us as a workable alternative until the bigger picture is addressed.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Reporter-Herald, Aug. 20, on millions of dollars missing in Afghanistan:
What’s $360 million? In the context of the U.S. military budget, maybe it’s not much. For the Taliban, it’s a windfall. The Associated Press reported last week that $360 million in American money meant to support reconstruction in Afghanistan was lost to “the Taliban, criminals and power brokers with ties to both.” It was the U.S. military itself that determined the money had been lost.
The Taliban, the brutal, reactionary insurgent movement that’s fighting Americans to reclaim control of Afghanistan, is commonly perceived as a ragtag band of zealots not unfamiliar with cave living. Just an extra million dollars could help it greatly. Millions and millions of dollars could promise success in multiple offensive operations. That the United States inadvertently gave our enemy such financial assistance is a sign of an administrative breakdown on an infuriating scale.
And it’s hardly the first instance of fund-management ineptitude in Middle East war zones. The image of wayward shrink-wrapped cartloads of cash will be an enduring symbol of American folly in Iraq. There’s still $6.6 billion of American money unaccounted for in that country.
Members of Congress try to outdo each other denouncing wasteful spending on domestic programs, yet many billions of dollars have slipped from their control in a land full of enemies. They must face the families of fallen service members with the knowledge that American money may well have helped support attacks against Americans.
What’s $360 million?
In certain contexts, it’s an accounting error. In others, it’s an infinitely high price.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Coloradoan, Aug. 20, on the Secretary of State’s handling of campaign finance fines:
Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s forgiving approach when it comes to campaign finance fines is harmful to the public process surrounding elected officials.
Gessler’s office decided last week that the Larimer County Republican Party’s fine for not filing adequate campaign finance records should be reduced from $48,700 to $15,707.61. The county GOP, led by Chairman Larry Carillo, failed to file six campaign finance reports in 2010, which prompted the penalty.
Carillo was charged last month with theft between $2,000 and $20,000, a Class 4 felony. He is accused of stealing more than $17,000 from the party for personal use. He has pleaded not guilty.
Judd Choate, elections division director in the Secretary of State’s Office, ruled that while Carillo might have willfully disregarded campaign finance laws by not filing the reports, the county party itself was only “negligent” in its lacking oversight of its leading party official.
Choate wrote in his ruling, “We find that while the registered agent, Larry Carillo, likely acted willfully in his failure to file, the LCRP itself was merely negligent in its failure to oversee the activities of its appointed chairman.”
The Colorado Constitution sets out a fine of $50 a day for each day a campaign finance report is late, but it also allows the secretary of state to waive or reduce fines upon finding “good cause.” Gessler this spring established rules for such cases and capped fines based on how much a campaign or party spent or raised in the reporting period, whichever is higher.
But Gessler’s delineation in this case between willfulness and negligence is weak because it ignores any responsibility on the part of the Larimer County GOP for not ensuring that six separate campaign finance reports were not filed in 2010. Nor did the county GOP executive committee fulfill its duty to demand that such reports were filed in a timely manner. In fact, the county GOP didn’t file its first report until March 2011.
In other words, Carillo’s actions are not the only problem here. While other county GOP officials likely had no intention to defy the law, the rules exist to ensure accountability beyond a single individual’s actions.
Gessler wrote in an opinion piece in The Coloradoan that he believes large penalties discourage civil participation in our political process.
But we believe just the opposite.
Campaign finance reports are an important link to understanding the connection between money and political influence. They are an essential public tool in a representative republic.
Excusing what became a pattern of disregard for filing public campaign reports is far more discouraging to those who believe political engagement should be open and transparent.
Editorial:
———
Sterling Journal Advocate, Aug. 22, on transparency in government:
We hope it is not just a buzz-word of coming elections and candidates and that voters take it very seriously as they make their decisions to run for office or how they are going to vote.
As a newspaper, we hold the need and absolute necessity of transparency in government and government dealings at the top of all requirements in keeping our democratic form of government alive and well.
We try to encourage all of our government representatives to also make this a priority in their dealings of those who are trusted with representing the citizens of not only this country, but this state, county and city.
Most know that there are laws that govern what can be done in secret and what cannot be done in secret when you are a part of a body that uses the tax dollars of citizens to fund your activities. Some do not follow those laws, saying many times that it hinders their ability to do business.
Our thought is that if they are doing legal business, nothing in transparency or open meetings will be a detriment to what they are trying to accomplish. We understand the need for some things to be discussed when dollar negotiations are in consideration, but once again, as long as it is legal and fair, why should there be a worry about the people who are funding the negotiated issue to know exactly what the positions of the representatives are? Why can’t they know if those representatives are following what the voters want to be done in spending their money? Is there a fear that those votes might disappear if the voter wishes were not being represented? Of course there is, but that should not even be a consideration in any governmental representative’s decision. They are there to serve the voters.
Some may call our thinking as that of a Pollyanna. We say that our thinking of government by the people, of the people and for the people came along far before we existed and was conceived and organized by great minds who knew what it would take to be and stay a democracy.
Along with that transparency, i.e., letting people know what is going on, is the legal requirement to let people and voters know when it is going on. The full and timely posting of meetings in a formally designated public place at least 24 hours before a meeting is a given and they must include a specific agenda if at all possible.
A lesser-known mandate is they need to maintain a list of persons (individual and groups) who request to be notified of meetings or discussion on specific topics and to provide reasonable advance notice. These requests cover a two-year period.
We have recently seen the court decision on the ability to conduct secret votes and have vehemently opposed it.
We have also been asked why we can write an editorial without the name of the writer being mentioned. Noting the question, number one, we write the editorial representing the editorial board, so it is very possible that the writer may be writing something that is representative of the board but not of their personal beliefs. The biggest difference, though, is that we do not use tax dollars to operate our business.
There is much more contained in the overall umbrella of transparency in government. We would encourage every voter, taxpayer and interested citizen to be aware of what is going on and to accept no less than what is required by law from our elected representatives.
Editorial:
