A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Oct. 27, on oil production in the U.S.:
Some of the most spirited exchanges in the presidential debates involved energy policy. In the second debate, for example, Mitt Romney blamed President Obama for what he said was a one-year decline in oil production of 14 percent on federal land.
The president insisted that wasn’t true—”production is up” and “I’m all for oil production”—and that Romney would neglect renewables.
We’ve written about the need for extending tax benefits for renewables several times, and won’t repeat the plea today. But what about the state of oil production?
In a word, it’s booming—and we’ll get to the candidates’ charges and countercharges in a moment. As a headlines in this newspaper Wednesday proclaimed, “All’s well for U.S. oil wells” as “Prices, methods may drive output to world’s largest.”
You read that right: Given the current trajectory of domestic oil production, the U.S. could pass Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest producer. Indeed, as The Associated Press reported, U.S. production “is on track to rise 7 percent this year”—the “biggest single-year gain since 1951.”
As that report also indicated, the driving forces behind the boost are attractive prices for producers—for consumers, admittedly, not so much—and techniques such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that allow production in formerly unattractive locations.
To be sure, Romney is correct that the biggest gains have occurred on private land and that oil production was actually down 14 percent in 2011 on federal lands. But it rose during the first two years of the Obama presidency—if for reasons that probably had little to do with actions his administration took.
For that matter, the decline in 2011 was largely attributable to the moratorium on deepwater production imposed after the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. You may quarrel with the length of the moratorium, but no serious critic faults the administration for halting operations at least for a time to reassess safety rules.
Meanwhile, offshore production has ramped back up. Indeed, The Times-Picayune of New Orleans reported this week that regulators have already issued more deepwater drilling permits this year than in any since 2007. Proponents of more drilling such as Romney may chafe at the fact that federal officials have not opened up additional offshore (and on-shore) land to exploration, but they can’t credibly argue that production is being suffocated.
As early as next year, U.S. production of “liquid hydrocarbons” (including biofuels) could nearly equal that of Saudi Arabia, and then pull past it, The AP says. That’s terrific news—and we’re willing to bet it will occur no matter which candidate is elected president.
Editorial:
———
The Pueblo Chieftain, Oct. 29, on CEOs calling for tax revenue increases and spending cuts:
An impressive array of corporate chief executive officers around the nation last week called on Congress to reduce the federal deficit with tax-revenue increases and spending cuts.
The CEOs, in a statement released on Thursday, said any fiscal plan “that can succeed both financially and politically” has to limit the growth of health care spending, make Social Security solvent and “include comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit.”
The execs didn’t endorse President Barack Obama’s proposal to raise the marginal income-tax rates for the top 2 percent of taxpayers or any other proposal. Rather, they called for an overhaul of the tax code that, among other things, would eliminate or reduce deductions, credits and loopholes.
This closely mirrors the recommendation of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, which was appointed by the president. He received their recommendations and shelved them.
The CEOs, though, called the Simpson-Bowles recommendations “an effective framework” for their proposal.
The government has been using the tax code to pursue social policy and satisfy special interests. But all of those goodies add up, and they contribute significantly to deficits and the national debt.
Alice Rivlin, a Democrat who has opposed the increasing deficits, notes, “You can’t do it by just raising (tax) rates. We’ve got to have a broader (tax) base.”
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has suggested a limit—perhaps $17,000, perhaps $25,000—on itemized deductions that individuals can take and wants to use that revenue to offset the cost of lower tax rates.
It clearly is time for a major overhaul of the tax code, but it should be done so as not to facilitate more profligate federal spending. That will be a charge for the new Congress when it convenes in January
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Glenwood Springs Post Independent, Oct. 25, proposed statewide ballot on campaign finance policy:
Had enough of the nasty campaign ads, robo-calls and direct-mail flyers from mysterious political organizations making bogus claims about candidates and issues?
Amendment 65 on the statewide ballot gives voters a chance to take a symbolic stand against excessive campaign spending and, in particular, contributions to and spending by secretive organizations that have no public accountability.
Amendment 65 won’t overturn the Supreme Court’s misguided Citizens United decision, and doesn’t even try to do so. But it will put Colorado on record as opposing such flimflam in what should be respectable, above-board political campaigns.
We urge a yes vote on Amendment 65.
In doing so, we recognize the contradiction with our argument opposing Amendment 64. However, Amendment 65 makes only a three-word change in an existing constitutional amendment regarding campaign finance policy, from “encouraging voluntary campaign spending limits” to “establishing campaign spending limits.”
The rest of the heavy lifting is done through a new state statute.
This language calls on the state’s congressional delegation, its members of congress and senators, to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit campaign contributions and spending. It also calls on the state Legislature to ratify such an amendment if it were to be presented.
It’s an admittedly interim goal, but it’s also a statement that gives our delegation the opportunity to start to make a difference.
We are sick and tired of campaign garbage, hyperbole and lies. Amendment 65 is a start to making it stop.
Editorial:
———
The Coloradoan, Oct. 27, on CSU online studies:
With a football stadium potentially on the horizon, much has been said about what Colorado State University is planning to do on campus. Far less has been said about what Colorado State University is doing off campus—the latter could ultimately be far more important.
CSU deserves a lot of credit for recognizing that the college student is changing. Gone are the days of every student being fresh out of high school; today, they’re joined by an increasing number of students who are both older and working off campus.
This self-governing, self-motivated adult student taking classes remotely and getting a CSU education is becoming more and more common. CSU has embraced new styles of teaching through organizations that offer “massive open online courses,” or MOOCs. CSU’s Global Campus is playing a front-and-center role by making professors and materials available to students all across the world at a price that is more amenable to folks who wouldn’t otherwise give a secondary degree a second thought.
CSU is one of the first universities to be connected with one of the largest MOOCs out there. Udacity () is higher education online portal that allows students to learn by solving challenging problems and pursuing projects with renowned university instructors in an engaging format.
The partnership seems to work seamlessly. For example, students who choose to take the final for Udacity’s computer science course at an independent testing center (for $89) can get transfer credits from CSU-Global Campus.
We applaud CSU for looking at where the future of higher education is going and being a leader in forming creative partnerships. With all the divisive flack CSU has gotten over the football stadium, it is great to see such forward thinking on the bigger stage. Its ability to solve funding gaps while still fulfilling its core mission of educating the masses gives us hope in a university that can continue to balance academics and athletics.
Editorial:
