A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Nov. 30, on getting a deal passed before the fiscal cliff:
Two themes are emerging from negotiations and meetings in Washington to come up with a deal that would stave off the fiscal cliff, the combination of across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect Jan. 1—absent congressional action.
First, Republicans increasingly say they’re willing to raise revenues, and more of them are backing away from Grover Norquist’s no-tax-increases pledge. That’s the good news, and more, if not all, GOP legislators should follow suit. Federal legislators shouldn’t have their hands tied by a pledge that hampers their ability to negotiate in the best interests of their constituents and the nation at large.
Second, several Senate Democrats are hardening their opposition to tying reform of benefit programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—to a fiscal cliff deal. That’s the not-so-good news. It’s widely acknowledged that all three programs need to be reformed to remain sustainable. Democratic legislators who balk at that are putting up their own roadblocks to successful negotiations on a deal.
As we’ve said many times, everything needs to be on the table if Congress is going to come up with not just a plan to avoid the cliff, but also to emerge with a long-term plan to deal with annual budget deficits and the still-growing national debt.
In the latest round of talks, each side is asking the other to start providing specifics instead of generalities. The sooner they get to specifics, the sooner they can get to a deal.
The economy is still too fragile to survive the fiscal cliff without sliding into recession. Each side thinks it will be able to blame the other if that happens. We don’t want to see who gets the blame or who gets political points if it does. There will be plenty of blame to go around.
Editorial:
———
Aurora Sentinel, Nov. 30, on filibustering in the U.S. Senate:
Senate Republicans won’t end their childish, obstructionist tactics, so it’s time for the grown-ups to step in and return democracy to the upper House of misfits in Washington.
Anyone who thinks the destructive filibuster antics of Senate Republicans during the past four years is just partisan politics as usual hasn’t been paying attention.
The historical ability for a slim minority to use special rules of the Senate to stymie the majority have served the country well—until now.
Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, has suffered through 386 Republican filibusters. When former President Lyndon Johnson led the Senate, he faced one.
The shenanigans have hurt all Americans numerous times by weakening legislation, delaying legislation and essentially and purposefully bringing the government to a halt. While it was clear a band of Senate Republicans intended these antics to end the Obama presidency, that scheme failed. Now it’s time to change the rules.
Even for those who find watching politics in Washington among the least of their worries, it’s been clear during the past few years that the time-honored tradition of filibustering legislation has just gone too far.
Those who vehemently support the Senate filibuster process, who are—at the time of their defense of the process—almost always in the political minority, say it’s a necessary part of checks and balances in the American political system.
It’s not. There are many checks and balances in the complicated American political system, built on the foundation of powers separated by three branches of government. Peculiar to the Senate, rules allow a minority of members to hold up the legislative process by making it impossible to move proposed laws and other measures to the floor for a vote.
Over the years, this filibuster process has been modified several times. The House of Representatives did away with filibuster rules more than 100 years ago. The Senate has pretty much watered down the process since the early 1900s, with changes coming after a period of heavy abuse and obstructionism.
That time has come again. Republicans have unfairly held the Senate hostage for more than four years, resulting in a weakened and unsatisfactory health-care reform law among the long list of measures made worse by allowing partisan temper tantrums.
The timing for any changes here is critical. The new Senate can make rule changes on the first day of business next year with a simple majority, which Democrats still enjoy. It’s critical that they bind together to make clear that the American system of legislation is strengthened by weakening the rules that allow for legislating to come to a complete halt. A more pragmatic set of filibuster rules are better for both parties when they are in charge of the Senate, and when they’re the minority.
What Republicans refused to admit during the past four years is that a large majority of American voters, and a large majority of members of the U.S. House and a large majority of members of the U.S. Senate wanted the changes that Congress undertook. The notion of a filibuster is to slow the process to allow for thorough and thoughtful debate on a measure, not to allow minorities to do an end run on the democratic process and bully the country into getting their way.
Democrats should turn aside temptation to keep rules the way they are in preparation for the day they fall into minority status and hope to use the same tactics to run the country. The Senate must press ahead with filibuster rule changes for the good of every American, and the sooner the better.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, Dec. 3, on using Fort Lyon as a facility for the homeless:
For the last couple of years, the Fort Lyon dilemma has preoccupied the Hickenlooper administration.
Too expensive to keep as a prison, and too important to the rural southeastern Colorado economy to mothball it, the question has centered on how to repurpose the historic facility.
Last week, the governor’s staff presented a request to the Joint Budget Committee that would turn the leafy 500-acre campus into a training and treatment facility for the homeless.
The idea isn’t new, but the impact on the state budget is—almost $7 million over the next two fiscal years.
The details coming out of Gov. John Hickenlooper’s administration paint an intriguing picture of what could be. The facility would include a working farm on which program participants would learn workforce basics like showing up for a job and taking direction.
One of the major sticking points in a state as strapped as Colorado is going to be explaining how $3 million annually in operating expenses is an appropriate and prudent use of meager state funding when there are so many other needs.
The presentation made to the state legislature’s Joint Budget Committee on Nov. 29 was a start.
But it’s clear from questions posed by JBC members and the length of time the committee spent on the issue—about an hour—that the administration has only just begun the job of explaining why this idea makes sense.
Roxane White, the governor’s chief of staff, explained to us that the local community has a history of embracing the facility, particularly given the history of Fort Lyon. It was a prison for just a decade. Before that, it had a long run as a veteran hospital.
“It is a community that understands how to help people in need of rehabilitation,” she said.
Otero Junior College is willing to partner with the program and offer remedial education. White makes an excellent point about how few communities would welcome a facility for the homeless.
As for questions of whether homeless people who live in cities would be willing to relocate to a rural area, White said many of the homeless are in urban areas not by choice, but because that is where services are.
There are 12,500 homeless people in Colorado, White told us. Finding 200 who would go to the facility for a chance at transitioning to a mainstream life will not be a problem.
The idea is appealing, but the finances give us pause. The governor’s office has requested $840,000 initially, and an additional $6 million over the next two fiscal years. That’s on top of $5 million in mortgage settlement money earmarked for a Fort Lyon project.
We look forward to hearing continued discussion about whether and how Colorado can afford to make this intriguing plan a reality.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Dec. 2, on settlement in 2010 shooting death involving two former Colorado State Patrol troopers:
Now that a negotiated settlement has been preliminarily agreed upon in the 2010 shooting death of Jason Kemp that involved two former Colorado State Patrol troopers, it appears the legal issues involved in this tragic case are nearly at an end.
We hope that CSP leaders in Denver will now quickly conclude their investigation into the Fruita State Patrol troop, take whatever administrative actions they deem necessary and assure residents of this region that the CSP here is operating at the highest levels of professionalism.
Kemp was shot during a July 2010 investigation of suspected drunk driving on his part. Two State Patrol officers tried to force their way into Kemp’s home without a warrant and, according to some court testimony, without probable cause. Kemp was shot as he scuffled with a trooper at his front door.
Trooper Ivan “Gene” Lawyer, who shot Kemp, was found not guilty of the most serious criminal charges against him (the jury could not reach a verdict on several lesser charges) during a trial in Mesa County earlier this year.
Based on that outcome, the district attorney decided not to proceed with prosecution of the second officer involved, Cpl. Kirk Firko.
Both men have since been fired by the State Patrol. However, a federal wrongful death lawsuit was filed by Kemp’s family in 2011 against the two men, as well as Sgt. Chad Dunlap of the Fruita troop and other CSP officials.
As part of that case, a federal judge wrote earlier this year that the two troopers had violated Kemp’s Fourth Amendment constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure when they attempted to force their way into his home and used unnecessary force in the process.
It was the mediated settlement of that lawsuit which was announced last week by attorneys for both Kemp’s family and the State Patrol. The amount of the settlement has not been disclosed.
Kemp’s death was the most high-profile of several incidents involving local CSP troopers in recent years. Among the others was the revelation that one former trooper falsified official investigation reports—sometimes adding information from entirely different incidents—presumably to make his cases against suspected drunk drivers.
We continue to believe that most of the troopers working out of the Fruita State Patrol office are careful and conscientious law enforcement personnel.
But there have been enough incidents of late to raise questions about oversight, training and CSP policies in general. That’s why CSP Chief James Wolfinbarger launched an investigation of the troop earlier this year.
We hope, once the lawsuit settlement is finalized, the investigation can be concluded, the results made public and this unfortunate chapter in the history of the State Patrol in this region can be closed.
Editorial:
