A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
STATE:
The Grand Junction Sentinel, July 15, on regulatory hurdles to exporting natural gas:
The unlocking of unconventional oil and gas reserves in the United States has been an American success story harking back to earlier days of domestic industrial glory.
The kinds of know-how and innovation developed in places including western Colorado’s own Piceance Basin are starting to be put to use in other countries, as well. But exports of American natural gas, the actual domestic product of processes such as hydraulic fracturing and directional and horizontal drilling, have been slower to follow.
The exporting process itself isn’t simple. Unlike oil, gas must be liquefied in order to be shipped across oceans. But regulatory hurdles exist, as well. Among them is the need for Department of Energy approval where exports are proposed to countries without a U.S. free trade agreement.
Such approvals have been slow in coming, according to the energy industry, which fears the delays will result in lost opportunities.
Now a bipartisan group of 34 U.S. senators has written new DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz to express similar concerns and to urge his agency to start expediting consideration of 20 other applications after its recent approval of a second export application.
U.S. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., are part of that group and deserve the region’s appreciation for recognizing the importance of this issue and supporting quick action on export approvals.
As the senators’ letter notes, if the United States doesn’t aggressively market these exports, many nations “may have no choice but to purchase energy from Iran and other nations that are not aligned with our own national interests.”
More exports also would mean more domestic jobs and economic growth, including in places such as western Colorado, where drilling activity has been subdued for years due to low natural gas prices. Colorado Mesa University’s Unconventional Energy Center has backed the increased exports in a letter to the DOE, saying, “For the Western Slope of Colorado, access to export markets is exactly what we need to reinvigorate industry and boost our local economies.”
Increased exports would allow more access to higher-paying markets. Natural gas is a commodity that, unlike oil, doesn’t have a global price. While domestic natural gas prices are below $4 per million British thermal units, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission estimates that LNG is fetching $14.50 in Japan this month.
The prospect of increased exports alarms certain interests, including domestic manufacturers reliant on affordable natural gas and advocates for residential gas consumers. But while new market outlets undoubtedly will shore up prices, increases will be moderated by the added cost of liquefying gas and getting it to distant markets, and the fact that more and more countries also are developing gas reserves using American-proven techniques.
What exports will do is help provide for the kind of minimal price increase that could make the difference between a company drilling on a lease or sitting on it in places such as western Colorado.
Editorial:
———
The Gazette, July 14, on demanding answers behind the proposed tax increase for education:
Politicians, including Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, want voters in November to approve a massive, historic and permanent billion-dollar-a-year tax increase that will raise income tax rates of middle-class wage earners from 4.63 percent to as high as 5.9 percent. It could be a hard sell, to say the least, but politicians tell us it’s all for the children. It’s an education tax, they insist.
The progressive tax, which would do away with Colorado’s fair and enviable flat tax, would cost almost $600 each year for a family living on $100,000. For someone earning $45,000, the cost would be $166.50.
Most decent human beings care about children and value education, so perhaps they’ll think a giant wallop to Colorado’s economy, along with a hit to household budgets, makes good sense. Anything for the children.
Just make sure the politicians prove it. Make sure this money will go for education before even considering a vote in favor of something that will tax Colorado incomes at a rate higher than is paid in more progressive states, such as Michigan, Massachusetts and Illinois. Understand that voting to take an additional $1 billion a year out of Colorado payrolls will be a gift to flourishing states, such as Texas and Wyoming, that charge no income tax and try to lure talent and employers away from Colorado on that basis.
When seeking proof this money will go for education, demand to know how many more teachers the money will fund. Demand to know what new schools will be built and what new programs this will fund. Tell the politicians that you will fund a good cause, so long as you know exactly what the money will pay for. Don’t settle for words alone. Be certain this ballot measure, and the school reform bill that it connects to, contractually guarantee the annual $1 billion-plus will go directly to classrooms and teachers.
In demanding this information, Coloradans are certain to find that politicians can make no such assurance. That’s because the education finance bill, which kicks in only upon approval of this enormous tax, does almost nothing to protect these funds for education. As explained by State Treasurer Walker Stapleton – who probably understands state finance better than anyone else in state government – the money can be used for almost anything the legislature and governor want. He suspects it will be used to backfill the underfunded Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERA), which is on a financial collision course. If he is correct, the tax increase will fund lavish pensions – not classrooms and teachers. We need to fix PERA, so it can meet its contractual obligations, but not with a tax hike fraudulently sold as a way to improve education for our kids.
Another concern with this tax is the dirty little secret of state government’s true financial condition. State politicians say they desperately need more cash for education, yet they’ve been rather silent about $1.1 billion in excess, unanticipated revenues for the 2013-14 fiscal year.
As explained in today’s Gazette by reporter Megan Schrader, state politicians find the government awash in unexpected cash because of the state’s rebounding economy. State politicians spent more than half the surplus, as detailed in Schrader’s report, and only 1.2 percent went for K-12 per-pupil funding. That tells us a lot about the level of commitment the controlling party has to public education. Given a windfall that’s about the same amount as anticipated annual revenue from the proposed tax hike, they declined to spend any meaningful amount on K-12 education. We might expect more of the same from the desired “education” tax.
“We were willing to spend things on K-12 education and there was no interest in the Democrat’s side to do any of that, they wanted more taxes,” said Sen. Kent Lambert, a Colorado Springs Republican who sits on the committee responsible for drafting the state budget.
At this juncture, it’s hard to trust the stated purpose of the massive new tax proposal. Simply calling it an education tax won’t make it so. If they can’t prove it, prepare to vote “no.”
Editorial:
———
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, July 15, on further action after the George Zimmerman verdict:
Given the interest in the George Zimmerman verdict and the fact that the NAACP and other groups are demanding federal action, we don’t blame the Justice Department for assessing whether criminal civil rights charges might be legitimate now that Zimmerman has been acquitted. But we’re deeply skeptical of proceeding with further charges.
The same problems that hobbled the state in its pursuit of Zimmerman would face the Justice Department, beginning with the lack of witnesses to the deadly confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in February 2012.
And there would be new problems, too. A civil rights charge would presumably require evidence that Zimmerman acted out of racial bias. Yet if hard evidence of such bigotry failed to surface in the past year and a half, it’s hard to believe it would come to light now.
To be sure, the Justice Department has played an important role historically in filing federal charges when a clear miscarriage of justice seems to have occurred in a case involving race. But if there was a miscarriage of justice here, it certainly isn’t obvious.
You can argue that Sanford police fumbled the early handling of the investigation. You can say Zimmerman should have stayed in his car, should not have had a gun, or should have made any number of other decisions differently, but we simply do not know exactly how the final confrontation unfolded. Martin was the only other witness and he is dead; meanwhile, it so happens that he appears to have been on top of Zimmerman when the fatal shot was fired.
The jury’s conclusions could not have been shocking to anyone who followed the case with an open mind.
Of course, open minds and fair-minded attitudes have not been the hallmarks of the Trayvon Martin phenomenon since it burst into the national consciousness last year. Politicians, activists and commentators of both left and right have exploited the incident to make extravagant claims regarding, on the one hand, the American justice system and, on the other, civil rights ideology in the age of political correctness. And that discourse for the most part has been an ongoing disgrace.
Unfortunately, the low point in this rush from balance may have been supplied by the media—specifically, NBC News’ racially inflammatory editing of Zimmerman’s 911 call to police on the night of the shooting.
During the trial, it became clear the state overreached in charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder, setting up unrealistic expectations among many. The Justice Department should heed that lesson before taking on what would appear to be a long-shot prosecution.
Editorial:
———
The Pueblo Chieftain, July 15, on the House farm bill and food stamps:
House Republicans passed a farm bill last week that separates food stamps from farm policy.
Those two programs have been joined at the hip for about four decades as a sop to big-city Democrats pushing food stamps and farm country Republicans seeking to keep agribusiness happy.
This split caused liberals to go apoplectic.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and The New York Times editorial page wrung their hands over a change that would take “food out of the mouths of babies.” Oh, those dastardly Republicans.
Ms. Pelosi helped to defeat this year’s original $1 trillion farm bill because its food stamp allotment at $740 was considered by liberals as too chintzy. The cost of the food stamp program more than doubled from 2008 to 2012.
The new farm bill continues to include too many subsidies such as those for sugar and dairy farmers. But the bill does call for spending $20 billion less over 10 years than current law. And it does away with a law that originated under the New Deal and contained production controls and price supports.
We hope that, in conference committee, the price supports can be limited to family farms, not those big corporate operations that dot the Midwest.
The food stamp program needs major surgery. In 2002 there were 19 million on the program. Ten years later that number had skyrocketed to more than 46 million, with the government advertising the program to gain new Democratic adherents.
The House approved a work requirement for food stamps that is in line with the one included in the 1996 welfare reform signed by President Bill Clinton. The able-bodied should not lounge in front of the boob tube and still get assistance for nothing.
President Barack Obama has threatened to veto any farm bill without food stamps—the status quo. But then he would get nothing.
The farm bill has grown out of its humble beginnings to help stabilize food prices and keep small farmers on their land. It’s about time that Washington revamp the whole mess, and the House GOP plan is a good place to start.
Editorial:
