The Denver Post's Dan Haley has a great line in today's column about Betsy Markey's inconsistency on the question of federal bailouts: "If the 2008 election was about change," Haley writes, "this election is about the change that's left in your pocket."
Wish I'd written that one.
Showing posts with label The Denver Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Denver Post. Show all posts
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Xcellent Journalism
The Denver Post's Vincent Carroll should win some sort of journalism award for his series of columns -- here's the latest -- exposing the incestuous, three-way relationship between Xcel Energy, the Ritter Administration and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Spawned of this unholy trinity was a “green energy” bill passed in the last session, HB-1365, which puts the screws to Xcel customers in order to bankroll an unnecessary technology shift for the company, from coal-fired to natural gas-fired plants. This was also a huge gift to natural gas companies, while potentially putting coal producers on the ropes.
It all gives off a strong whiff of conspiracy -- an impression reinforced by the reluctance of key players to document the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing. Carroll already has written several columns (including this one) about how Xcel and the PUC are using a new two-tiered rate structure to gouge electricity users with what Mike Rosen has dubbed the "air conditioning tax," in the name of encouraging energy efficiency. Now he’s taking a closer look at the coal-to-gas deal – and doing the public a huge service by staying on the scent.
Cloakroom collaborations between businesses and politicians aren't exactly new, or newsworthy. But what makes the PUC's behind-the-scenes involvement so troubling is the organization’s critical role in implementing legislation that it secretly helped craft. PUC Chairman Ron Binz, a social engineer with a strong green streak, told Carroll the PUC became involved in bill-crafting very late in the game. But any involvement is too much involvement, in my opinion.
The PUC is supposed to serve as an impartial and independent regulatory and rate-setting entity that primarily looks out for the public interest. It shouldn’t be a backroom deal-maker, or involved in drafting legislation it will later have to implement. The collaboration between Ritter, Xcel and the PUC (private environmental groups were also involved) ought to be investigated (and not just by one intrepid columnist), and implementation of the law should be suspended, if that’s possible, until the public knows everything that happened behind the scenes.
It all gives off a strong whiff of conspiracy -- an impression reinforced by the reluctance of key players to document the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing. Carroll already has written several columns (including this one) about how Xcel and the PUC are using a new two-tiered rate structure to gouge electricity users with what Mike Rosen has dubbed the "air conditioning tax," in the name of encouraging energy efficiency. Now he’s taking a closer look at the coal-to-gas deal – and doing the public a huge service by staying on the scent.
Cloakroom collaborations between businesses and politicians aren't exactly new, or newsworthy. But what makes the PUC's behind-the-scenes involvement so troubling is the organization’s critical role in implementing legislation that it secretly helped craft. PUC Chairman Ron Binz, a social engineer with a strong green streak, told Carroll the PUC became involved in bill-crafting very late in the game. But any involvement is too much involvement, in my opinion.
The PUC is supposed to serve as an impartial and independent regulatory and rate-setting entity that primarily looks out for the public interest. It shouldn’t be a backroom deal-maker, or involved in drafting legislation it will later have to implement. The collaboration between Ritter, Xcel and the PUC (private environmental groups were also involved) ought to be investigated (and not just by one intrepid columnist), and implementation of the law should be suspended, if that’s possible, until the public knows everything that happened behind the scenes.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Risks of Viral Legislating
"No one can say this is a junket." Or so said Sam Mamet, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, when responding to Denver Post coverage of the group's 87th annual conference in Vail. "This is a quality conference, and people recognize it as such."
Whatever you say, Sam. I suppose it's a question of semantics.
The event did have some appearances of a seminar. But the golfing and parties certainly might give taxpayers the wrong impression, given the financial hardships so many cities and counties are suffering at the moment. It didn’t help that one attendee, Glendale City Council member LuVerne Davenport, admitted to a reporter (who she didn’t know was a reporter) that the city’s six-member contingent was there to “goof off.”
This raises legitimate questions about fiscal responsibility; about whether it's a wise use of public resources in times such as these. But it's the networking and conferring I dread most. If they were really all just "goofing off," we'd have less to fear than if they're actually exchanging ideas and trafficking in policy prescriptions. That’s where the trouble begins.
The biggest problem with such events, in my opinion, isn't the waste of money or time. It's the fact that they can hasten the spread of stupid municipal fads, which seem to move like viruses through the body politic. It's not by chance that you read about something being approved by your city council this year that was approved by Boulder's city council last year. Most politicians are herd animals. When they aren't trolling newspaper headlines, searching for regulatory responses to the stories they read, they're being spoon-fed ideas by special interests and professional planning groups, or borrowing them from "colleagues" in other cities.
One purpose of associations like the Colorado Municipal League is to help bored or unimaginative legislators keep up with the latest governing fads, so they can stay busy and seem relevant. You've heard of viral marketing? There's also such a thing as viral legislating. And it's at these functions that such contagions are unleashed.
Because politicians are always looking for reasons to legislate, for "problems” to solve, for new excuses to "do good," they're highly susceptible to the sort of group-think that goes on at such conferences. One lousy governing idea, if raised in isolation, will most likely get shot down. And if approved, the damage it will do is limited in scope. But lousy ideas more easily germinate, gain credibility and spread when group-think is at work. And the damage can be more widespread, and become really serious, when this sort of viral legislating takes place.
The best reason to steer your local officials away from such events isn't to save tax money; it's to keep them focused on their own backyards, on the governing fundamentals, and to not give them any bright ideas. It's in places like Vail that they catch the activist itch, or Do-Gooders Syndrome, which almost always leads them off on larks. And it's this that explains why even local governments have a tendency over time to grow, spend more, regulate excessively and stray from core functions.
No vaccine as yet exists to guard against the threat of viral legislating, so the best way to protect local officials is quarantine. As constituents, we should insist that they avoid such conferences and seminars. As risky as such behaviors are to them, it’s we taxpayers who ultimately pay the price when they return from such conferences infected with the activist itch.
Whatever you say, Sam. I suppose it's a question of semantics.
The event did have some appearances of a seminar. But the golfing and parties certainly might give taxpayers the wrong impression, given the financial hardships so many cities and counties are suffering at the moment. It didn’t help that one attendee, Glendale City Council member LuVerne Davenport, admitted to a reporter (who she didn’t know was a reporter) that the city’s six-member contingent was there to “goof off.”
This raises legitimate questions about fiscal responsibility; about whether it's a wise use of public resources in times such as these. But it's the networking and conferring I dread most. If they were really all just "goofing off," we'd have less to fear than if they're actually exchanging ideas and trafficking in policy prescriptions. That’s where the trouble begins.
The biggest problem with such events, in my opinion, isn't the waste of money or time. It's the fact that they can hasten the spread of stupid municipal fads, which seem to move like viruses through the body politic. It's not by chance that you read about something being approved by your city council this year that was approved by Boulder's city council last year. Most politicians are herd animals. When they aren't trolling newspaper headlines, searching for regulatory responses to the stories they read, they're being spoon-fed ideas by special interests and professional planning groups, or borrowing them from "colleagues" in other cities.
One purpose of associations like the Colorado Municipal League is to help bored or unimaginative legislators keep up with the latest governing fads, so they can stay busy and seem relevant. You've heard of viral marketing? There's also such a thing as viral legislating. And it's at these functions that such contagions are unleashed.
Because politicians are always looking for reasons to legislate, for "problems” to solve, for new excuses to "do good," they're highly susceptible to the sort of group-think that goes on at such conferences. One lousy governing idea, if raised in isolation, will most likely get shot down. And if approved, the damage it will do is limited in scope. But lousy ideas more easily germinate, gain credibility and spread when group-think is at work. And the damage can be more widespread, and become really serious, when this sort of viral legislating takes place.
The best reason to steer your local officials away from such events isn't to save tax money; it's to keep them focused on their own backyards, on the governing fundamentals, and to not give them any bright ideas. It's in places like Vail that they catch the activist itch, or Do-Gooders Syndrome, which almost always leads them off on larks. And it's this that explains why even local governments have a tendency over time to grow, spend more, regulate excessively and stray from core functions.
No vaccine as yet exists to guard against the threat of viral legislating, so the best way to protect local officials is quarantine. As constituents, we should insist that they avoid such conferences and seminars. As risky as such behaviors are to them, it’s we taxpayers who ultimately pay the price when they return from such conferences infected with the activist itch.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Rocky Castoff a Welcome Addition at The Post
When the Rocky Mountain News went under several weeks back, only a handful of its talented staff could be taken in by an erstwhile rival, The Denver Post. I was glad to learn that former Rocky Editorial Page Editor Vincent Carroll was one of them.
Not only would an important voice in Denver media not be silenced, I thought, but this would bring more balance to the Post's opinion page, which still leans too far left for my tastes, despite the hiring a few years back of the very talented David Harsanyi. It's just unfortunate Carroll will only be a columnist, and not sit on the editorial board, because that's where the Post -- which isn't The New York Times, to be sure -- could use his common-sense conservatism (I apologize if he prefers the libertarian label).
Carroll's editorial pages were better than the Post's, in my humble opinion, and not just because they leaned more to my side of the ideological spectrum, or because they featured the work of the great Pete Blake. Vince's personal columns were for me a must-read: They could always be counted on to make clear, substantive, well-argued and well-aimed observations about the Colorado scene. And his interests mirror my own, making it feel at times like he was reading my mind (and beating me to the punch on picking up on something).
He hasn't missed a step since moving to The Post, as today's column shows.
The first half of Carroll's piece highlights one of many oddities about Obamanomics -- that the president and his top aides seem to think any and every American job is worth "saving," except jobs in the one sector of the American economy that actually generates real value and real jobs, and is indispensable to our economic strength -- the energy sector. There the president seems to be making war on American jobs.
“Two weeks ago, President Barack Obama grandly told the nation that during "every moment of economic upheaval" in the past, the government "created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive."
But what about old businesses, you might wonder. Isn't their health of equal importance?
Apparently not. Take the energy industry, which the president identified as one of the three keys to our economic future. The recovery plan actually "begins with energy," he declared.
In fact, his administration's job destruction plan begins with energy. At the very moment Obama is poised to direct waves of subsidies into forms of renewable energy that account for a minuscule slice of the nation's electricity, he would strip oil and natural gas producers of incentives to drill.
New jobs in green energy could easily be engulfed by jobs lost in domestic oil and gas production.”
Carroll then takes up a topic near and dear to my heart: the madness of the Endangered Species Act. And here he echoes things I've written about Colorado’s regrettable experiment with the Canada lynx:
“Will a 3-foot-long cat become for this state the guest who takes over the family room — forever?
"A new lynx conservation plan could be a factor in whether Breckenridge Ski Resort will be allowed to expand onto Peak 6," the Summit Daily News reports. The lynx is a "threatened" species, you see, so any use of its habitat is a minefield.
At the moment, the Forest Service is merely studying the area around Peak 6 before it decides how to rule. That would be routine, except for one thing: The lynx in question are newcomers. They're guests we invited here between 1999 and 2006, importing them from Alaska and Canada in an attempt to restore the creatures to the southernmost reach of their original range.
Biologists doubt that lynx were ever plentiful in Colorado, as sightings were rare even in the state's early days. But since the release of the lynx a decade ago, they seem to have flourished.
Some of us predicted what is happening now. Putting lynx in the wild is fine, we warned, but the state should proceed only if the federal government pledges that the species will not be used to restrict land uses. Listing the lynx as "experimental" would have done the trick, but the state didn't even seek that status until after the cats were here. Naturally, the feds said no.
The lesson is clear for the next "re-introduction" of a species (wolves? wolverines?). Before we transport them here, first ensure that their rights won't trump ours.”
The lesson seems clear -- but is apparently lost on those who recently launched a lynx-like recolonization effort at Fort Carson with the black-footed ferret, which I’ve commented on here and here. If the Carson colony flourishes, it's only a matter of time before the presence of the animals is used by gang green to argue for training restrictions at the facility. Where will Fort Carson and Colorado Springs be then?
Not only would an important voice in Denver media not be silenced, I thought, but this would bring more balance to the Post's opinion page, which still leans too far left for my tastes, despite the hiring a few years back of the very talented David Harsanyi. It's just unfortunate Carroll will only be a columnist, and not sit on the editorial board, because that's where the Post -- which isn't The New York Times, to be sure -- could use his common-sense conservatism (I apologize if he prefers the libertarian label).
Carroll's editorial pages were better than the Post's, in my humble opinion, and not just because they leaned more to my side of the ideological spectrum, or because they featured the work of the great Pete Blake. Vince's personal columns were for me a must-read: They could always be counted on to make clear, substantive, well-argued and well-aimed observations about the Colorado scene. And his interests mirror my own, making it feel at times like he was reading my mind (and beating me to the punch on picking up on something).
He hasn't missed a step since moving to The Post, as today's column shows.
The first half of Carroll's piece highlights one of many oddities about Obamanomics -- that the president and his top aides seem to think any and every American job is worth "saving," except jobs in the one sector of the American economy that actually generates real value and real jobs, and is indispensable to our economic strength -- the energy sector. There the president seems to be making war on American jobs.
“Two weeks ago, President Barack Obama grandly told the nation that during "every moment of economic upheaval" in the past, the government "created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive."
But what about old businesses, you might wonder. Isn't their health of equal importance?
Apparently not. Take the energy industry, which the president identified as one of the three keys to our economic future. The recovery plan actually "begins with energy," he declared.
In fact, his administration's job destruction plan begins with energy. At the very moment Obama is poised to direct waves of subsidies into forms of renewable energy that account for a minuscule slice of the nation's electricity, he would strip oil and natural gas producers of incentives to drill.
New jobs in green energy could easily be engulfed by jobs lost in domestic oil and gas production.”
Carroll then takes up a topic near and dear to my heart: the madness of the Endangered Species Act. And here he echoes things I've written about Colorado’s regrettable experiment with the Canada lynx:
“Will a 3-foot-long cat become for this state the guest who takes over the family room — forever?
"A new lynx conservation plan could be a factor in whether Breckenridge Ski Resort will be allowed to expand onto Peak 6," the Summit Daily News reports. The lynx is a "threatened" species, you see, so any use of its habitat is a minefield.
At the moment, the Forest Service is merely studying the area around Peak 6 before it decides how to rule. That would be routine, except for one thing: The lynx in question are newcomers. They're guests we invited here between 1999 and 2006, importing them from Alaska and Canada in an attempt to restore the creatures to the southernmost reach of their original range.
Biologists doubt that lynx were ever plentiful in Colorado, as sightings were rare even in the state's early days. But since the release of the lynx a decade ago, they seem to have flourished.
Some of us predicted what is happening now. Putting lynx in the wild is fine, we warned, but the state should proceed only if the federal government pledges that the species will not be used to restrict land uses. Listing the lynx as "experimental" would have done the trick, but the state didn't even seek that status until after the cats were here. Naturally, the feds said no.
The lesson is clear for the next "re-introduction" of a species (wolves? wolverines?). Before we transport them here, first ensure that their rights won't trump ours.”
The lesson seems clear -- but is apparently lost on those who recently launched a lynx-like recolonization effort at Fort Carson with the black-footed ferret, which I’ve commented on here and here. If the Carson colony flourishes, it's only a matter of time before the presence of the animals is used by gang green to argue for training restrictions at the facility. Where will Fort Carson and Colorado Springs be then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)