A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Reporter-Herald, Sept. 10, on America’s relationship with dictators abroad:
In late 2003, after weapons of mass destruction failed to turn up in Iraq and U.S. forces were settling in for a fight that continues to this day, President George Bush presented a major policy statement at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He referred to the “2,500-year story of democracy” and said the United States was leading a “global democratic revolution” in Iraq.
Americans support democratic movements wherever they emerge, but they are smart enough to recognize such rhetoric as worthless. Because, while democracy has developed over more than two millennia of history, American presidents have a long history of calling for democracy in places where in reality they could give a hoot about the sort of government in charge, so long as it delivered favorable economic or national security conditions for the United States. America has gone out of its way, in fact, to subvert democracy when it produced leaders unfriendly to the United States.
In Libya, we find the latest instance of a repressive regime enjoying a chummy relationship with Washington. It was long understood that Libya was a destination for terrorism suspects transported there by the United States. Documents uncovered in Tripoli after Moammar Gadhafi fled reveal new details about America’s ties to the strange and brutal dictator.
The documents suggest closer cooperation between the CIA and Libyan intelligence services than was previously known, that American officials supplied Gadhafi with a proposed speech on unconventional weapons, and that MI-6, the British intelligence service, might have traced phone numbers for the Gadhafi regime.
A CIA spokeswoman reacted by saying, “It can’t come as a surprise that the Central Intelligence Agency works with foreign governments to help protect our country from terrorism and other deadly threats.”
No, that’s not a surprise. What is a surprise is that a country that so values its own democratic principles and that at the microphone cites the spread of democracy as a justification for war is in the back room making deals with democracy’s worst enemies.
Friends of democracy are feeling optimistic, however. The Arab Spring has shown that democracy can be impossible to resist when it pulses not from the Pentagon but from public squares. And there is little questioning the motivation behind indigenous calls for democracy in the Middle East, which is a lot more than can be said for America’s role in Iraq.
Editorial:
———
The (Colorado Springs) Gazette, Sept. 9, on President Obama’s Jobs Act:
Hope that President Barack Obama had come up with a brilliant means of creating jobs—something big enough to warrant a joint session of Congress—was dashed after Thursday’s salesman-like pitch for another round of massive stimulus spending. Obama cannot create jobs and is likely to cause more debt. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry cannot create jobs. Government cannot pass a law that will fix our economy by spending. It just can’t work. We’ve tried the Keynesian experiments for decades, and they have predictably created the mess we are in.
Jobs are created by the private sector and nothing Obama said will inspire anyone to get busy with activities that create jobs. If the Jobs Act becomes law, Americans will be even more likely to hunker down and guard their cash.
One big element of Obama’s proposed jobs act involves another yearlong extension of unemployment benefits. Obama and his advisers reason that unemployment recipients will spend their jobless wages on goods and services, which will create demand in the economy. The demand will give companies reason to produce and hire. The money given to the long-term unemployed will come from others who could use it to consume or to hire if so inclined. It’s another shell game. There is no magical way to convert a redistribution scheme into economic growth. One cannot fill a well with water from the well itself.
Obama says the jobs act would create work by modernizing schools and spending $50 billion on bridges and roads. Again, it takes money out of the economy and puts it back in. Haven’t we tried this? Roads and bridges are to an economy what conveyor belts are to a factory. They facilitate production, but they don’t pay the bills. They must be funded during times of economic growth with the proceeds of prosperity—not during times of economic stagnation when little value is produced.
The plan calls for even more cuts to Social Security withholding taxes, which Obama hopes will give middle class earners more disposable income, thus causing demand that will result in jobs. That would be great if the cuts could be long term. They cannot be long term because Social Security has obligations to baby boomers who are retiring in droves. If retirees are not paid, they won’t have money to spend and create demand that may create jobs. Again, it’s a redistribution ruse.
The tax cuts Obama proposed would run only through 2013 because government cannot afford them without drastic cuts that Obama won’t consider.
“A major plant started today would be completed roughly at the same time as the proposed tax cuts expire. These tax breaks will do nothing to create jobs today,” said Jeff Macke, founder and president of Macke Asset Management and host of Yahoo’s trading show “Breakout.”
It’s great that Obama sees tax cuts as a means of creating jobs. But only long-term. across-the-board tax breaks and eased regulations will cause Americans to risk capital on job-creating endeavors. They must be funded by limiting government in ways that remove barriers to success. Another shell game is the last thing we need.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, Sept. 13, on Colorado Secretary of State’s possible fundraising conflict:
It’s hard to imagine what was going through Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s head when he decided to headline an upcoming fundraiser for the Larimer County Republican Party.
As you may know, Gessler is a Republican and his office last month gave the Larimer County GOP a highly publicized and quite substantial fine reduction for campaign finance reporting violations.
Gessler’s decision to raise money to help the group pay off the remaining fine smacks of poor judgment. It also raises questions about the propriety of the fine reduction—from $48,700 to $15,708—and whether the local Republican Party got preferential treatment to begin with.
Gessler’s response is that he is not involved in individual fine waiver decisions made by his staff.
But it’s also true he could override those decisions. And we’re not so naive as to think the staff in his office would be unaware that Gessler was a prominent Republican election lawyer before taking office.
With such a background, one might think Gessler would bend over backward to avoid even an appearance of a conflict of interest.
In that vein, when we first saw the invitation featuring Gessler sent out by Larimer Republicans, we thought it was a joke. Would Gessler really agree to such an appearance given the brouhaha the fine reduction had created?
We were among those who questioned the decision, which let the party off the hook in a big way for failing to keep an eye on a chairman now accused of stealing money and not filing campaign finance reports.
Gessler’s office decided the party was only negligent, not willful, in failing to monitor the activities of its chairman, Larry Carillo.
We wondered then, and still do, what the party would have to have done to get the “willful” label. In the end analysis, we wondered whether the new waiver process, modified during Gessler’s tenure, was really an effort to undermine the $50-a-day campaign finance reporting fine in the state constitution.
Gessler also says Republicans are angry about the decision, but for a different reason. They think the fine is too high.
In a breezy invitation, they are invited to take aim at Gessler, who will be sitting in a dunk tank, in an effort to raise some cash for the Larimer County Republican Party.
Gessler, apparently oblivious to the seriousness of the criticism, said Democrats upset about the situation were welcome to come to the fundraiser too, and could try to send him splashing into a tank of water.
That sort of comment makes us wonder if he’ll ever get it.
The bottom line is that Gessler’s decision to appear at the Sept. 22 event smacks of favoritism from a public official who took office in 2010 amid concerns he would be too partisan to do the job impartially.
If Gessler values his reputation and wants to try to salvage his standing as an impartial arbiter of Colorado campaign finance rules, he ought to reverse course and withdraw from the event.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Sept. 7, on Flaming Gorge Pipeline proposal:
When the Colorado Water Board Meets in Grand Junction next week, the state’s lead water agency will be asked to spend $150,000 to establish a task force to investigate the Flaming Gorge Pipeline proposal.
The water conservation board should reject the idea and keep the $150,000 in state coffers. At a time when all levels of government are struggling to make ends meet, it makes no sense to spend such money on the latest incredibly expensive and environmentally disastrous mega-water-project proposal.
The Flaming Gorge Pipeline is a plan to build a water pipeline from Flaming Gorge Reservoir on the Utah-Wyoming border, across southern Wyoming, then south to cities along Colorado’s Front Range.
That 560-mile-long pipeline would divert some 81 billion gallons of water a year from the Green River—roughly a quarter of the water in the major tributary to the Colorado River, according to the conservation group, Western Resource Advocates.
The Flaming Gorge Pipeline was originally proposed by Colorado entrepreneur Aaron Million, but the notion has been picked up by some water entities in Colorado. The request to the Colorado Water Conservation Board next week comes from the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority.
The project would cost $7 billion to $9 billion to construct, according to state estimates. And that would make it the most costly water project in the state’s history.
If it were constructed, the cost of delivering water through the pipeline would be so astronomical—up to 10 times more than any existing project—that municipal water customers along the Front Range could not afford to purchase it, according to a report prepared for Western Resource Advocates.
Neither the state nor federal governments have the resources now to subsidize those water costs, as federal agencies have on water projects in the past.
Proponents of the project may dispute those figures, and argue that’s why the Water Conservation Board needs to form a task force to study the proposal.
But, on top of the financial issues, there are serious environmental issues. Taking so much water out of the Green River will harm a spectacular trout fishery that exists just below Flaming Gorge. It will also reduce water flowing through Dinosaur National Monument and flows needed for maintaining habitat for endangered fish, two issues that make it highly problematic when it comes to review by federal government agencies.
Although proponents have claimed the project will only take water during wet seasons and years, when more is available, once water starts flowing to thirsty, growing cities, it will be difficult to say none is available during dry years. Because of that, the pipeline will reduce the amount of water available for Colorado, Wyoming and Utah to send downstream under the Colorado River Compact. That means western Colorado will have less water available to use to meet future development needs.
All of these issues combined should make the Flaming Gorge Pipeline a nonstarter. The Colorado Water Conservation Board should reject the funding request.
Editorial:
