A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Longmont Times-Call, Feb. 17, on why more work is expected on national deficits, debt:
When President Obama told the joint session of Congress on Tuesday that substantial work had been completed on the task of getting the nation’s fiscal house in order, it might not have come as a surprise if the lighting in the hall had taken on a pink hue.
After all, it takes the rosiest of rose-colored glasses to make such a statement.
Obama said that over the past few years, the deficit has been reduced by more than $2.5 trillion through spending cuts and tax hikes on the richest 1 percent of Americans. “As a result,” Obama said, “we are more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.”
What is most troublesome about this argument is that it concedes the point of whether the federal budget will be in balance at any point in the next two decades. However, as the baby boomers surge toward retirement and their Social Security and Medicare benefits, the scope of federal spending will not have decreased at all in the long run.
In the coming weeks, the rancorous political climate in Washington will grow worse as advocacy groups at all levels realize what the true effects of government spending cuts entail. As sequestration goes into effect, sharp reductions in spending for defense, social programs and other federal programs will occur. The worst-case scenario could be a complete government shutdown by the end of March if no action is taken.
Unfortunately, the blunt instruments of sequestration and shutdown will not bring the United States’ fiscal house back into order. By allowing such actions to occur, Congress and the president run the risk of having the nation’s credit rating eroded further, which will create more difficulties throughout all levels of government and into the private sector.
By now, it should be obvious what needs to be on the table for the “grand bargain” to occur: Substantive cuts to the federal budget, modifications to Medicare and Social Security to ensure their solvency through the next decades and the elimination of tax loopholes that, while popular, have outlived their usefulness as policy goals. Such loophole closures should allow the overall federal tax rates to be decreased.
The federal debt and ongoing budget deficits matter—but by trying to advance the argument that a bulk of the work on them has been accomplished, President Obama has not shown a seriousness of purpose to get the true cost of government into balance.
Editorial:
———
Aurora Sentinel, Feb. 15, on gag order in case against James Holmes:
Few things have kept just about every aspect of America on the straight and narrow as have the media and the right to free speech.
From the Federalist Papers to Watergate and beyond, the United States is what it is due to the public’s right and need to know. Arapahoe County District Court Chief Judge William Sylvester overlooked that this week when he refused to back off a gag order in the James Holmes case.
In the last few weeks, officials from the city, police, the University of Colorado and others have insisted that Sylvester end his far-reaching gag order in the case against Holmes. Holmes is accused of killing 12 people and critically wounding dozens of others during the July 20 Aurora theater shootings. Days after the massacre, Sylvester created a court order forbidding just about any government, hospital or school official anywhere from saying anything about the shootings, Holmes or the victims.
Ever since the farcical O.J. Simpson murder trial in 1995, judges routinely tell police and investigators to keep their mouths shut about high-profile cases in the interest of ensuring that defendants, as well as victims, get a fair trial. Now “fair” is an interesting word in the case of Holmes. Just minutes after the shooting it became indisputable that Holmes was the gunman responsible for the slaughter. The only unanswered questions are: How did he amass such an arsenal, and what made him do such a vile thing?
Prosecutors answered those questions last month when they made their case against Holmes in open court. The Aurora Sentinel and hundreds of newspapers and TV stations across the planet revealed to everyone a mountain of evidence against Holmes, evidence that makes it seem likely that an insanity defense for Holmes will be a reach.
There’s very little reason to continue a gag order against school and police officials who revealed all during Holmes’ preliminary hearing. In fact, there is no reason to keep police and others muzzled at a time when the public has a real need to know how it was that Holmes amassed his arsenal, tipped his hand and stayed out of jail or a mental hospital.
Sylvester’s priority isn’t public safety or the First Amendment. It appears he’s interested in a fair trial above all else. Now in Sylvester’s case, “fair” means finding a pool of jurors that have open minds about the details of the case against Holmes. It’s TV-courtroom fiction that has lawyers looking for 12 people living under rocks that haven’t heard anything about the melee at the Aurora cinema.
Holmes’ lawyers see “fair” as a pool of people willing to agree that Holmes was too crazy to know what he was really doing. That’s going to be a hard job since he obviously kept it together for a long time to amass his arsenal, set up an extensive array of booby traps in his apartment, and pull off a well-orchestrated rampage. Rest assured, an insanity hearing is in the making, and this is going to drag out for a long, long time.
In the meantime, outside of Sylvester’s courtroom, the world still turns. Residents of Aurora have a compelling need to explore the police and fire response to the massacre, and the entire country is trying to sort out issues of gun control based on the particulars of this case.
Sylvester’s response to arguments about the gag order was: Figure it out for yourselves. In his order, Sylvester said that gag order stands, but that government officials, affected by the order, can determine what they can and can’t say.
That’s nothing but shoddy ruling by the bench, and it’s not going to cut it. Aurora police and legal officials have made it repeatedly clear they’re struggling with how to proceed under Sylvester’s comprehensive and unwieldy gag order. Telling officials they can release what they want until Simon says, “wrong move,” is a much greater threat to a fair trial than is a few well-worded orders that let government officials talk about already made-public evidence.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, Feb. 17, on latest plan to fix Colorado’s child welfare system:
The child protective service reforms announced this month by the Hickenlooper administration are a step in the right direction, but they fail to take on the most problematic and politically divisive issue plaguing the system.
It has been known for years that Colorado’s fractured child protection services setup—in which the state engages in planning and monitoring, but the counties supervise staff and deliver services—is the root of many issues.
The reforms unveiled by Gov. John Hickenlooper, which the administration calls Keeping Kids Safe and Families Healthy 2.0, would not fundamentally change this situation.
How long is this issue going to go unresolved?
A study group during the administration of Colorado’s last governor, Bill Ritter, suggested a revamping of the state-county system. That was supposed to be one of the priorities for a group that had planned to look at the matter for an entire year.
But that group actually had only two months to look into the complex proposal since the executive order creating the commission was delayed.
The problem is that Colorado counties are dead-set against what would amount to a state takeover. Yet time and again, Colorado’s two-tier system is criticized for having a lack of consistency and issues with accountability and accessibility.
In the same editorial in which we criticized the administration for a punt on the system set-up issue, we also made note of the continuing lack of a workload study.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about overworked social workers and unwieldy caseloads. But even though a caseload study has been recommended several times in Colorado by the various blue-ribbon commissions and boards that have looked at the system, one has yet to be done.
Any day now, state lawmakers are expected to request a caseload study, and the Hickenlooper administration said it would cooperate with such an effort. Well, thank goodness.
The reforms announced by Hickenlooper and Reggie Bicha, executive director of the state Department of Human Services, include other measures that seem to be on the perennial to-do list for child protection services. They include a statewide abuse reporting hotline and more and better training.
And the administration has identified $20 million to go toward these measures and early intervention efforts to help families in troubled situations deal with problems before matters escalate.
Also good. No doubt.
We understand how upset county officials became last time there was any discussion of revamping the system and how that might be politically uncomfortable in the run-up to an election.
But it seems every time there is a crisis, the kind brought on by dead children who might have been saved by state intervention, there is a collective outcry, the same recommendations and a decided lack of follow-through on the most difficult questions.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Feb. 19, on the need to revamp the state’s School Finance Act:
It’s been clear since before the current session of the Colorado Legislature was called to order that revamping the state’s School Finance Act would be among the most important tasks facing lawmakers this year.
This week, state Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver and Rep. Millie Hamner, D-Frisco, have stepped into the breach, with a 144-page draft bill aimed at making necessary changes. Hamner’s district includes part of Delta County.
We have not delved into every detail of the proposal, but a synopsis of the measure shows it attacks some of the critical problems of school funding in Colorado. It could greatly benefit School District 51, which has historically been at the bottom or near the bottom of the state’s per-pupil funding system.
But even if the Johnston-Hamner plan is passed by the Legislature, none of it will be implemented unless voters in Colorado approve a ballot measure in November to raise taxes to increase funding for schools. Exactly what such a ballot measure will look like is not clear, since no ballot language has been put forth, as yet.
However, Johnston and Hamner have said they want to increase education funding by $750 million to $1.1 billion a year. To give readers an idea of what that would require, raising the state sales and use tax 1 cent, from 2.9 cents to 3.9 cents per dollar would raise approximately $870 million in new revenue, according to a revenue forecast for the 2012-2013 fiscal year prepared by the Colorado Legislative Council.
The same forecast showed that raising the state income tax by 1 percentage point—from its current level of 4.63 percent to 5.63 percent—would generate about $1.3 billion million in additional revenue this year.
If voters are persuaded to raise taxes for schools, and if the legislation is approved in close to its current draft, it would benefit School District 51 in several ways.
First, the basic formula for state funding and local property taxes would be based on a statewide average for all districts rather than the current system that has several different tiers. For the past 20 years, District 51 has been left to languish in the lowest-funded tier.
Additionally, there would be provisions to grant school districts more money based on the percentage of low-income students in each district. Because District 51 has a relatively high level of students receiving free or reduced cost lunches, such a provision could help this district significantly.
Another part of the bill would set up a special fund to help school districts comply with the many unfunded state mandates that have been created by the Legislature. Those mandates have provoked regular—and quite reasonable—complaints from school districts around the state.
There are significant problems that must be addressed with regard to school funding in Colorado. We applaud Johnston and Hamner for offering a detailed proposal which attempts to accomplish just that.
Editorial:
