A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Pueblo Chieftain, April 9, on the Supreme Court review of the lawsuits against the federal health care law:
Following the recent arguments about Obamacare before the Supreme Court, supporters of the president’s health care law are once again criticizing opponents of the law for failing to offer their own alternative. Even President Barack Obama has weighed in, painting a phony picture of poor children and elderly grandmothers being denied the care they need should the law be struck down.
They are wrong.
The Heritage Foundation, for example, has outlined a detailed and comprehensive approach to reforming health care in Saving the American Dream. There are four core elements of this conservative alternative.
Repealing Obamacare. Patient-centered, market-based health care is incompatible with the fundamental construct of Obamacare.
Obamacare is based on turning more power over health care dollars and decisions to Washington. In sharp contrast, the Heritage plan is based on turning more power over health care dollars and decisions to individuals and families.
Reforming health care entitlements. Medicare and Medicaid are in need of reform.
The Heritage plan would transform Medicare and Medicaid into premium-support systems where seniors and low-income families can choose the health plans that best suit their personal needs. It also restores Medicaid as a true safety net to care for those with disabilities.
Restructuring the tax treatment of health insurance. Under the Heritage plan, taxpaying Americans would get a federal tax credit to help them buy health insurance for themselves and their families.
Like life, home and car insurance, individuals would own their health insurance policies and would no longer be at risk of losing their health coverage just because they change or lose a job. Moreover, if they don’t like their health insurers, they can fire them.
Advancing practical insurance market reforms. The Heritage plan structures its insurance market reforms on a consumer-driven model, not a government-controlled model. Changes are made to complement and enhance a real consumer-based marketplace for health insurance, where insurers and providers are compelled to compete based on quality and price.
Conservatives looking for an alternative should start with these principles when formulating their proposals.
Editorial:
———
The Reporter-Herald, April 4, on a recent ruling on antibiotics in livestock:
Better late than never. A federal judge recently ruled that the Food and Drug Administration must restart the process, begun 35 years ago, to ban the use of penicillin and tetracycline to promote growth in farm animals unless drugmakers could show the drugs were safe.
The ruling, and the possible ban on the nonmedical use of those antibiotics in livestock, however, might not go far enough.
The FDA in the ’70s concluded that the widespread practice was lessening the effectiveness of antibiotics in humans and resulting in antibiotic-resistant infections. But its 1977 ruling to start the process of banning the nonmedical use of penicillin and tetracylcine in livestock went nowhere after Congress put pressure on the agency.
Judge Theodore H. Katz of the Southern District of New York had this to say in his ruling to get the FDA back on track: “In the intervening years, the scientific evidence of the risks to human health from the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock has grown, and there is no evidence the FDA has changed its position that such uses are not shown to be safe.”
Katz’s ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Food Animal Concerns Trust, Public Citizen and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
If the judge’s order leads to a ban of the nonmedical use of antibiotics in livestock, that’s a good start. But a story in the New York Times notes that it doesn’t affect the use of antibiotics in livestock to prevent disease, which is how farmers and ranchers now describe their use. And the FDA has made no move to enact such restrictions.
That should be the next step. If the FDA’s concerns 35 years ago were valid—and the mounting scientific evidence certainly shows they were—are they no less valid today?
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Sentinel, April 9, on proposed constitutional amendments in Colorado:
As if Coloradans needed more evidence that our system for amending the state Constitution desperately needs repair, there is this:
A brother and sister team from Colorado Springs, through “family discussions,” have concocted four proposed constitutional amendments that would radically change public policy in this state.
The most radical of the four aims to eliminate property taxes in Colorado by 2017. In doing so, the measure offers voters the chance to make up for the lost property taxes by approving other taxes before Dec. 31, 2016. If that isn’t done, the measure says budget cuts must be made. But it offers the absurd mandate that this be accomplished without affecting funding for schools, law enforcement or fire protection.
Since school districts depend to a large extent on property taxes for their revenue, and many fire districts depend exclusively on a property mill levy, eliminating property taxes without establishing another form of revenue, then simply decreeing that the revenue of these agencies can’t be affected, is nonsensical.
It’s as logical as passing a ballot measure to declare that winter, and the cost it imposes on people, is no longer allowed.
None of the four measures put forth by Samuel Babcock and Elise Van Grinsven is yet on the ballot. The organizers still have to gather roughly 86,000 signatures for each. But the fact they have made it this far—each has an approved ballot title by the state—is testament to the fact that Colorado’s amendment process far too easy.
The other measures proposed by these siblings, according to The Denver Post, include one to eliminate the requirement for concealed carry permits and thereby allow anyone over 21 to legally carry concealed guns in most places in the state, as well as an amendment to create an open primary in Colorado so that citizens could vote for any candidate in a primary, regardless of party affiliation.
The fourth measure would change state Senate districts so that they are based entirely on geography with no population component. As the Post noted, the last measure would violate U.S. Supreme Court decisions going back at least 50 years.
If the siblings successfully gather enough signatures to get these measures on the ballot, it’s likely Colorado voters will reject them, as we have done in the past with outrageous ballot plans. But that will only occur after costly campaigns to explain the measures and their consequences. The costs and efforts are unfortunate distractions from other important campaigns at stake this election year.
Even more unfortunate is that Colorado continues to allow small groups of people to, with relative ease and little expense, force measures onto the ballot that propose massive, ill-considered and illogical changes to our system of government. As a state, we must change our system for amending the state Constitution.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, April 7, on tourism legislation:
Legislation that would expand the number of tourism projects that could receive state tax incentives in a single year threatens to knock off balance a well-defined process calibrated to identify projects that truly will bring new visitors to the state.
We oppose the measure, and we’re glad that Gov. John Hickenlooper has threatened to veto the bill if it lands on his desk.
At issue is a recent addition to the state’s collection of economic development tools, the Regional Tourism Act. It was conceived as a tool to bring new visitors to Colorado via projects that otherwise wouldn’t have been built.
The RTA allows for a portion of state sales tax generated by a new project to pay for the infrastructure necessary for the project to move forward. The mechanism is called tax increment financing.
Since the RTA’s approval in 2009, Colorado officials have been prudent and conservative in structuring the process and the evaluation criteria.
We’re glad to see it, because all too frequently these sorts of programs are seen as cash cows for ideas that come with overly optimistic projections that never pan out.
If there is to be any erring, it’s in the public interest to be more strict in evaluating projects than less so.
As it stands, the RTA provides for up to two projects in the first year. Local government sponsors collectively may receive up to $50 million in state tax incentives in a year.
Up to two more projects may be approved per year in the second and third years of the program, for a total of six.
Senate Bill 124 neither changes the overall dollar cap nor modifies the total projects—six—that can be approved. What it does is allows all six to be approved in a single year.
It seems to us it’s designed to grease the skids for approval of all six projects that have been pitched so far.
Trouble is, there are fairly strong indications that all six may not merit the tax incentives.
The evaluation process, which some applicants have deemed harsh, called out every proposed project for overly optimistic estimations of the new visitors who would come to Colorado. Those estimates are directly tied to the amount of money each project would be eligible for.
For instance, Douglas County had asked for $86.5 million in tax incentives over 30 years, for a sports and “prehistoric” park. But an analysis done by a consultant hired by the Colorado Economic Development Commission determined the project would be eligible for just $5.5 million.
That’s a pretty big difference. And Dougco is not alone.
Ultimately, the decision to green-light projects or deny them lies with members of the state’s Economic Development Commission. Broadening the number of projects they could approve would only increase pressure on them to please everyone.
We think the original process, which allows for gradual implementation, is wiser than setting the stage for furious lobbying to jam through all six projects in the first go-around.
Editorial:
