A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Jan. 14, on President Obama’s proposed merger of six large agencies:
Maybe it’s an election-year maneuver crafted for maximum voter appeal, but President Obama’s proposed merger of six large agencies seems like a prudent cost-cutting move in financially trying times.
The White House proposal could eliminate 1,000 jobs and save $3 billion over a decade.
So, why, with a staggering $15 trillion debt hanging over the heads of Americans, are some Republicans raising questions about the idea and demanding to shape consolidation proposals themselves?
Call us cynical, but we have to believe that, too, has something to do with the November presidential election. How disappointing.
To be sure, Obama has been adept at crafting win-win issues in the run-up to the presidential election. That is to say, he wins if he wins, but he also wins if he loses.
If Congress refuses to approve the authority allowing him to consolidate these various trade and commerce agencies, he can add that to his list of grievances about what he has called a do-nothing Congress.
If federal lawmakers approve Obama’s reorganization proposals, he can cite his government-trimming actions when Republicans attack him for what they say is unprecedented growth in government.
The part that gets short shrift in these hyper-partisan times, the really important part, is that cost reduction is good for the country and efficient governing is better governing.
Obama’s proposal would fold six major business and trade operations into one agency. It also would elevate the head of the Small Business Administration to a Cabinet-level position.
The plan is designed to give businesses, large and small, better access to government. It is intended to help U.S. businesses export more goods and to grow the economy.
The power the president is seeking also would allow him to propose other government consolidations to federal lawmakers, who would vote them up or down within 90 days. The commerce and trade proposals are supposed to be the first of a series of consolidations.
That all sounds pretty good to us.
So, why would Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s office immediately began asking whether the move was for show? Why wouldn’t they ask: How can we help?
To be fair, not all Republicans have reacted negatively to the proposal.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a frequent Obama critic, said he stands ready to work with the president on reorganization. He added that he hoped it was the beginning of a “sincere and dedicated effort” to enact reforms.
That’s how we would expect true small-government Republicans to react, and we hope more Republicans move toward that position.
Whether it’s political opportunism should hardly matter so long as it’s good policy.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Jan. 12, on Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour’s pardoning of several prison inmates:
Outgoing Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour angered many of his constituents, and ran afoul of the state’s constitution, by giving pardons or medical releases to more than two dozen inmates of Mississippi prisons.
It’s not that Barbour, as governor, doesn’t have the legal authority to pardon prisoners. He does. However, under the Mississippi Constitution, prisoners seeking a pardon must have notice of their intentions published for 30 days in a newspaper or near where the inmate was convicted. Because that apparently didn’t occur in all cases, a state judge temporarily blocked the release Jan. 11 of 21 inmates Barbour pardoned.
Such a notification process is sensible because it gives those living in a community where a crime occurred a heads-up that the criminals may soon be freed.
For example, four of five inmates released last weekend as a result of Barbour’s pardons—and before the judge’s order—were convicted murderers. People living in the communities where those crimes occurred might very well want to know when convicted murderers are seeking pardons, so they may make a counter argument to the governor.
Publishing that information in a local newspaper well beforehand is the best way to get the word out. Posting the information at a state website would not reach as many affected people.
Colorado’s Constitution also allows the governor to pardon a convicted felon or commute a sentence. But our system is much different than Mississippi’s. Pardons can only be granted after a sentence has been fully served, to restore full citizenship rights to a convicted person. However, a sentence can be commuted by the governor, and an inmate released from prison. But when that occurs, the notification requirements are not nearly as rigorous as those in Mississippi.
Mississippi Judge Tomie Green was right to halt the pending release of the 21 other inmates pardoned or given medical releases by Barbour until the notification mandates are met.
And Colorado ought to have requirements similar to those in Mississippi to ensure the public receives adequate notification if an inmate is seeking to have a sentence commuted.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Coloradoan, Jan. 14. on Gov. Hickenlooper’s support of civil unions, bipartisanship:
Gov. John Hickenlooper took a somewhat unorthodox approach in his State of the State address last week by pushing forth both social and political goals.
Past governors have been tripped up by either trying to ignore social issues or allowing them to overwhelm all other goals. Hickenlooper appears to be on the right track by balancing the two, at least at the onset of a legislative session sure to be characterized by election-year politics.
In his speech, Hickenlooper urged lawmakers to prove “cynics” wrong by legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples. Although the final version of the legislation is not yet available, if the proposal mirrors last year’s civil union bill, then passage is appropriate. If the previous bill had passed, couples in civil unions would have the ability to be involved in their partner’s medical decisions. The bill would have enhanced inheritance rights and made it easier for couples to list each other as dependents on health insurance.
As the Coloradoan editorial board noted before, sexual orientation is none of the Legislature’s business, but ensuring fairness and fundamental rights for all, indeed, is its responsibility. Common sense and fairness also dictate that those who enter into civil unions should most certainly have the same ability as others to make medical decisions and purchase insurance and retirement benefits as all other couples.
Hickenlooper also called for lawmakers to work together to make Colorado more business friendly. That is political-speak for seeking ways beyond tax breaks to make it easier to do business here. So far, proposals include giving contract preference to companies that will hire Coloradans and easing investment regulations.
The governor also addressed two key topics that appear to have Democrats and Republicans at loggerheads. Republicans want to restore the senior homestead property tax exemption worth $100 million, but Democrats say Colorado can’t afford to do so just yet. Hickenlooper said now is not the time to restore the credit. A compromise is needed here to address needs for Colorado’s seniors in need.
Republicans also believe Colorado should seek a Medicaid waiver on a spending requirement from the federal government to address a growing burden on the state budget. Hickenlooper says such a waiver is not possible, but he correctly encouraged lawmakers to work together on a plan to reduce Medicaid costs.
With about $700 million in budget cuts expected, this will be a challenging session for the governor and lawmakers.
The best approach is to keep the focus on outcomes for Colorado rather than political gain.
Editorial:
———
The Gazette, Jan. 12, on Colorado Attorney General John Suthers not opposing a federal medical marijuana law:
“I’m not going to oppose it.”—Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, when asked about a federal attack on Colorado’s medical marijuana dispensaries.
It is hard to find a better, more hardworking lawyer than Suthers, whom The Gazette enthusiastically endorsed for re-election in 2010. Our endorsement was made with full knowledge of a troubling bias that Suthers allows to affect his job. He abhors the decision of Colorado residents—his clients—that legalized medicinal marijuana, including sale and distribution. Amendment 20 states: “‘Medical use’ means the acquisition, possession, production, use, or transportation of marijuana …” Since nothing is acquired, possessed, produced, used or transported for free, this law protects commerce.
The United States Constitution was written to severely limit federal authority. The 10th Amendment says the federal government has no authority that is not specifically granted in the Constitution, and plainly states that all other authority belongs to states or the people. That part of the Constitution is the basis of Suthers’ brilliant lawsuit to overturn Obamacare. He rightly insists that federal agencies cannot demand that Coloradans buy health insurance.
Suthers’ own website says he was elected to defend “the legal interests of the people of the State of Colorado and its sovereignty” (emphasis ours). Just as Suthers defends Coloradans from a health care law that threatens state sovereignty, he should defend their decision to legalize sales and use of medical marijuana. He doesn’t like the law for good reasons. He fears it makes drugs more widely available, even to children. Nevertheless, he swore to uphold all Colorado laws—not just those he agrees with.
In 2009, then-Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a memo instructing federal prosecutors to avoid directing resources at people making use of state medical marijuana laws. It was a move that favored states’ rights and the 10th Amendment. Ogden’s replacement, James Cole, created a bait-and-switch dilemma with a June memo that said state medical marijuana laws do not provide immunity from federal control. Subsequently, Colorado U.S. Attorney John Walsh sent letters to 23 marijuana retailers on Thursday, telling them their property will be seized and forfeited “if they do not discontinue the sale and/or distribution of marijuana within 45 days.” The 23 were selected because of proximity to schools, and it is safe to predict that other criteria will be used for future federal threats.
Should Attorney General John Suthers defend Colorado’s medical marijuana industry from federal attack?
Nothing in the Constitution grants federal agents authority to violate Colorado’s Amendment 20. A 6-3 ruling in 2005 by the United States Supreme Court (Gonzales v. Raich) states that federal authorities are authorized by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to regulate medical marijuana. It is blatant judicial activism, as the Commerce Clause authorizes regulation only of commerce “among the several states,” with Indian tribes and foreign nations. Medical marijuana sales are exclusively intrastate, as one must be a resident to obtain a license to buy or sell. If Suthers doesn’t consider the interstate commerce excuse absurd, he’ll have a hard time complaining if the court says the Commerce Clause allows Obamacare.
Mr. Suthers, please seek injunctive relief from this attack on your state’s sovereignty.
Editorial:
