A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Pueblo Chieftain, Feb. 3, on why it’s time to talk about immigration reform:
It’s time to fix the nation’s tattered immigration laws to make them more in sync with the realities of those here illegally and the needs of our nation’s economy.
First of all, with about 11 million people living and working here illegally, there is no sense in talking about trying to deport them all. It would be a herculean task that the federal government could not accomplish.
Furthermore, most of those who are in the United States illegally—the majority of whom are from Mexico—are here because they wanted to work. They have a strong work ethic and are not afraid of long hours and sometimes difficult tasks such as farm labor jobs.
So, as the debate begins, all of us should remember: these are fellow human beings, not some assortment of statistics. They deserve human respect.
This is not a conservative or liberal view. It’s what this nation has stood for as it has welcomed generation upon generation of immigrants from many lands.
So we were greatly heartened when a bipartisan group of eight United States senators announced last Monday they had agreed on a framework for immigration reform. It’s not every day when the likes of liberal New York Democrat Chuck Schumer and conservative Florida Republican Marco Rubio stand shoulder to shoulder with a common theme.
This shows that the eight senators have agreed there must be compromise to get the job done. That’s the legislative process.
Conservatives who are leery of reform can’t stop reminding one and all of the failed amnesty program that passed under President Ronald Reagan. That bill was supposed to tie border security with amnesty, but at the time Democrats in Congress failed to provide sufficient wherewithal to adequately secure the border with Mexico.
We long have championed the idea that our immigration policy should meet the needs of our economy. Whether we need electrical engineers or hospitality industry workers, our immigration policy should meet those changing needs. When our economy is slow as it has been in the past few years, fewer workers come and many already here return home.
The four Republican senators of the so-called “gang of eight” have conceded that reform needs to include an ultimate path to citizenship. People—young people included—who have invested much of their lives in the American economy and have worked to support their families deserve the chance at citizenship.
The four Democrat senators have agreed to accept substantial enforcement guarantees and procedural hurdles before such a citizenship path would be open. But such a path should not be considered amnesty.
As Sen. Rubio describes it, the path would require that illegals come out of the shadows, register for a special residence visa, pay a fine for crossing the border illegally, pay any back taxes owed, prove a work history, then wait in line behind others who already have been waiting to get their green cards. In other words, the path to citizenship is not a quick fix but rather a long-term process.
But that wait would help immigrants to assimilate into the American culture—as their kids already do—and become part of the melting pot that has made America great.
America is the land of opportunity. And opportunity is what attracts people here—either legally or illegally.
Those who are willing to become Americans are worthy of our support. The debates in Congress will be sometimes tenuous, but we urge all Members to keep that single idea at the forefront of their deliberations.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Feb. 4, on why Boy Scouts need to be inclusive:
The Boy Scouts of America exists to develop character, citizenship and personal fitness in its members.
In its effort to support this mission, the BSA has set nationwide, exclusive standards for members and leaders. But now it is rethinking one of those restrictions. This week, the organization—which turns 113 this year—is scheduled to consider ending its longstanding policy against the admission of homosexuals to the ranks of its membership and leadership.
As it weighs this decision, BSA leadership should keep in mind a couple of questions: Will this policy change compromise its mission? When a Scout promises to do his duty to God and country, to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to remain physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight, do sexual inclinations hinder that promise?
Specifically, the BSA will consider allowing the organizations that charter troops—such as service clubs and churches—to decide for themselves the guidelines for accepting members and selecting leaders.
We applaud the idea, not because the BSA is caving to social pressure but because this policy change would allow the organization to reach boys and men who have not felt welcome, while not forcing sponsoring organizations to compromise their beliefs.
The Boy Scouts of America builds character in its members through adherence to behavioral standards, and it rewards boys based on their successful completion of tasks and challenges laid before them. BSA holds its leaders to high standards and enforces guidelines that protect the scouts.
Scouting activities are geared toward the promotion of its mission—practicing teamwork, honing leadership skills, taking on physical tasks, even encouraging community activity and adherence to religious beliefs. The promotion of any view on sexual orientation or activity is not part of that mission and would be out-of-bounds in any Boy Scout setting.
Boys are welcomed into Scouting based not on their background but on their agreement to adhere to the standards of the organization. They promise to be “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.” Leaders are accepted based on their experience with children, on why they want to be a Scout leader and on the way they direct and discipline children.
Boys and men who desire to be a part of that organization, to conform to those standards and to do their “duty to God and country” should not be turned away.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Aurora Sentinel, Jan. 31, on ending state’s cash-for-commerce conundrum:
The days of the government sweetening the pot to lure new businesses with a juicy, public dowry appear to be numbered, and rightfully so.
A legislative measure given thumbs up so far by state political leaders would cap the amount of tax money companies could recoup under current state enterprise zone rules.
House Bill 13-1142, which has the support of top Democrats controlling the state House, Senate and governor’s office, would limit to $1 million how much a business can claim each year in state tax benefits for doing business in enterprise zones.
Even more telling, a comprehensive New York Times investigation in December revealed that such there is essentially no correlation between tax incentives like these and economic development or job growth.
In short, it’s just free money for businesses and does not for the most part equate to more jobs, better jobs or better pay.
The Times article pointed out that local, state and federal government officials hand over a whopping $80 billion a year to companies for expanding or creating new business. Sort of.
In many cases, the incentives are actually tax credits for tax money generated that wouldn’t have been created if the business hadn’t opened with the public bait. The argument for these incentives is that the businesses get to keep new tax money created, not existing tax money as a gift. In theory, the government sees a net gain.
But what the New York Times piece and numerous tax-incentive critics say is that it’s all nothing more than a shell game. If Aurora were to offer the XYZ Mall Co. $10 million in tax incentives to build a fancy new mall one mile east of the Town Center of Aurora mall, the chances would be good that it would simply siphon retail sales and jobs from the existing shopping center.
From city to city, there might be a net gain for such shenanigans, but within a region, it’s just a shell game. It all becomes municipal one-upmanship where the public at large loses tax dollars for the sake of competition.
In Aurora, two big offers for tax incentives came up short last year. Big money promised for a massive Gaylord hotel and conference center and a solar panel factory resulted in nothing more than headlines. Too often, incentive critics say, these deals don’t pay the public what they promised even if they come to fruition. Businesses produce fewer jobs or generate weaker sales than promised. Most would agree that a business plan dependent on government incentives is too poor a plan to get backing, and that there are myriad more important and influential aspects to economic development.
The problem is, local and state governments are convinced that they must have the ability to give businesses something for nothing or they’ll lose business to competing communities.
Probably not, is what the Times analysis shows. Time and again, Colorado economic development experts say that what really matters to businesses wanting a new location, to expand or to start from nothing, is a community that values quality of life. Good roads, good schools, safe homes, affordable colleges, a reliable fire and police department, manageable regulations and a solid technological and transportation infrastructure are far more important than cash bait.
Aurora and state officials should gather with other communities and agree to end the insanity once and for all, together. This doesn’t mean there should be an end to urban renewal programs, which need to be locally funded ways to raze eyesores to jump start redevelopment in truly blighted areas. It just means that as a community, as a state and as a nation, we realize that tax incentives really are nothing more than corporate welfare rather than reliable ways to stimulate new jobs and tax revenues.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, Feb. 3, on Colorado sheriffs to oppose all gun legislation:
The County Sheriffs of Colorado believe this is not “the appropriate time to introduce gun control legislation because decisions likely will be made on emotion rather than reason and that is not in the best interest of Colorado. It is the sheriffs’ opinion that all gun control bills be tabled for at least a year to encourage rational deliberations before any decisions are made.”
But, wait: Have the sheriffs deferred their own opinions on gun control during this supposedly emotional period? Why, no. In the same position paper in which they urge “our elected state leaders not to make decisions during this grieving period,” they reveal their own judgment regarding a number of proposals.
For example, they’re opposed to an assault weapons ban if it’s anything like the one that used to be in federal law. They’re also opposed to “any restriction on a person’s right to privately sell firearms to another person,” to a ban on high-capacity magazines or bulk purchases of ammunition, and to any mandate for a statewide database for concealed carry permit holders.
It’s perfectly respectable, of course, to be against those ideas. Indeed, taking such positions is part of the “open, honest and deliberative dialogue” that the sheriffs also reference in their paper. But why do they seem to assume that their positions have been reached in the light of cool reason but that those who differ from them have succumbed to the emotion of the moment?
Isn’t that contention a bit patronizing?
Their advice to wait a year might be more persuasive if the gun-control proposals they mention were novel or new. But of course most of them—and especially those involving assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and private gun sales—are not. They have been debated for years, even decades. And two of them actually were part of federal law at one time.
In short, the possible new laws the sheriffs cite are hardly exotic proposals that have yet to be fully vetted.
If you’re looking for ideas that haven’t been widely debated in Colorado, it’s actually not hard to find them. House Bill 1162, for example, would allow any person who legally possesses a handgun to carry a concealed weapon “subject to the same limitations that apply to a person who holds a permit”—thus greatly expanding the scope of Coloradans who can carry a concealed handgun. Another bill, which was killed last week, would have required businesses to provide security guards if they didn’t allow patrons to carry concealed weapons.
The County Sheriffs of Colorado were silent on those proposals, as well as on other bills whose implications are less well understood than the measures they actually cited.
We respect the sheriffs’ strongly held stance against restrictive gun legislation. But the idea that now is not a proper time to even consider such bills is simply not credible.
Editorial:
