November 2008

Am I really blaming a cartoon character, who warned kids against playing with matches, for the forest health crisis we’re facing today? Yes, in part.

As the cartoon character at the top, the buck stops with Smokey. Playing with matches in the forest is unquestionably something to be discouraged. But it’s even more dangerous these days, thanks to the simplistic, anti-fire attitudes Smokey long personified, which mirrored a century of short-sighted fire suppression policies by the U.S. Forest Service. Fire is a natural and even beneficial part of the natural environment. But the natural fire cycle was dramatically disrupted in North American a century ago, when good old Smokey and his colleagues began systematically stamping-out every fire that flared up.

That institutionalized fire phobia helped create the forest health crisis we face today, yet neither Smokey nor the agency he represents have adequately atoned for this. They put the focus on blaming errant or stupid individuals who spark the blazes, but the tinderbox conditions were created on their watch.

Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt put it this way in the midst of the 2000 fire season. "These forests are too thick,” he said. “They are explosive, they are dangerous and the reason is that fire has been excluded for 100 years and there is too much fuel in the forests, too many trees." Babbitt called for an overhaul of federal fire policy, including taking a more enlightened view of fire’s role in the natural scheme of things.

But the first problem with that is that it’s risky reintroducing fire into an overfueled environment. The second problem with adopting a more hands-on approach is political and ideological. Active management doesn't sit well with green extremists, because it clashes with their non-interventionist ideas about nature -- their belief that man can do nothing but harm in the wild. Thinning the forests would mean cutting trees. And cutting trees, in the eyes of extremists, might reopen the forests to hated loggers and profiteers. Better to let the forests die and burn, according to this warped way of thinking, than to admit that man, having already altered the forest and disrupted the natural fire cycle, might be able to correct the problem by returning to active management.

Of late, agency insiders and environmental groups have been blurring the issue by blaming wildfires, the beetle blight and other elements of the crisis on -- what else? -- global warming. But not that long ago, before climate change became the explanation of first resort for every phenomenon, there was consensus that human factors and policy decisions played a large part in the present crisis. By making fire seem a healthy forest’s enemy, rather than its ally, Smokey was blowing smoke up the public’s behind. But like the bureaucracy he represents, he emerged from the resulting firestorm unscathed, when it all blew up in his face.

The Gazette today confirmed what I've been predicting for some time: that Pueblo intends to press its advantage in the Democrat-controlled legislature to overturn the Department of Correction's decision to remain headquartered in Colorado Springs. I hope our own representatives, of both parties, are girding for battle, since Pueblo is nothing if not resourceful and ruthless in pursuing its interests. But just in case, this article should serve as a wake-up call.

Pueblo lawmakers want headquarters decision reviewed

DEAN TODA

November 24, 2008 - 9:34PM

A bipartisan group of state legislators from the Pueblo area is calling for a review of the state's decision to keep the Department of Corrections' headquarters in Colorado Springs.

In a letter dated Thursday and addressed to Rep. Jim Kerr, R-Littleton, chairman of the state Legislative Audit Committee, the legislators assert that competing bids from Pueblo and Cañon City were more attractive and that the Colorado Springs option will cost the state more money.

Pueblo offered $1.5 million in incentives for the DOC headquarters and its 240 employees. But in announcing its decision Oct. 2, the DOC cited lower transportation costs and convenience to Denver as reasons for remaining in Colorado Springs and moving into a new, 100,000-square-foot building near the department's existing headquarters on Janitell Road. That lease expires in 2010.

The DOC is the only department of state government not headquartered in the Denver area. The heaviest concentration of state prisons is in the Cañon City-Pueblo area.

The letter-writers argued that transportation costs were not quantified, and not weighed against "the hard real costs of construction, maintenance and operation."

"An independent evaluation would insulate CDOC from further suspicions of bias," the letter said.

It was signed by Sens. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, and Ken Kester, R-Las Animas; and Reps. Dorothy Butcher, D-Pueblo, Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, and Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs. Also signing were Reps.-elect Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, and Edward Vigil, D-Fort Garland.

"We included operational efficiencies," said Katherine Sanguinetti, a spokeswoman for the DOC. "Travel to and from the headquarters, the central office location, is part of those operational efficiencies."

She said that even with the financial sweeteners, the Pueblo bid finished last among the five finalists.

If it finds merit in a complaint, the Legislative Audit Committee can refer it to the state auditor's office.

It comes down to us as a cornerstone of left-wing mythology, and an article of faith, that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal saved the United States during the depths of the Great Depression, which was caused by the failures of capitalism, according to the same myth. Such beliefs are debatable; many scholars and economists argue that Roosevelt’s policies and programs, far from saving America, deepened and prolonged the nation’s agonies and left behind, as a dark legacy, the gargantuan government we’re saddled with today.

So before we embrace a “New New Deal,” or accept the silly notion that Barack Obama is the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt, as a recent cover of Time Magazine suggests, we ought to get our facts straight about the old New Deal. A piece in yesterday's New York Times by Tyler Cowen, a professor at George Mason University, performs a valuable public service by taking a more sober and objective look at the successes and failures of FDR's program.

We can only hope that members of Barack Obama's new economics team will read it carefully.

Here's Cowen's piece:

The New Deal Didn’t Always Work, Either

By TYLER COWEN

MANY people are looking back to the Great Depression and the New Deal for answers to our problems. But while we can learn important lessons from this period, they’re not always the ones taught in school.

The traditional story is that President Franklin D. Roosevelt rescued capitalism by resorting to extensive government intervention; the truth is that Roosevelt changed course from year to year, trying a mix of policies, some good and some bad. It’s worth sorting through this grab bag now, to evaluate whether any of these policies might be helpful.

If I were preparing a “New Deal crib sheet,” I would start with the following lessons:

MONETARY POLICY IS KEY

As Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz argued in a classic book, “A Monetary History of the United States,” the single biggest cause of the Great Depression was that the Federal Reserve let the money supply fall by one-third, causing deflation. Furthermore, banks were allowed to fail, causing a credit crisis. Roosevelt’s best policies were those designed to increase the money supply, get the banking system back on its feet and restore trust in financial institutions.

A study of the 1930s by Christina D. Romer, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley (“What Ended the Great Depression?,” Journal of Economic History, 1992), confirmed that expansionary monetary policy was the key to the partial recovery of the 1930s. The worst years of the New Deal were 1937 and 1938, right after the Fed increased reserve requirements for banks, thereby curbing lending and moving the economy back to dangerous deflationary pressures.

Today, expansionary monetary policy isn’t so easy to put into effect, as we are seeing a shrinkage of credit and a contraction of the “shadow banking sector,” as represented by forms of derivatives trading, hedge funds and other investments. So don’t expect the benefits of monetary expansion to kick in right now, or even six months from now.

Still, the Fed needs to stand ready to prevent a downward spiral and to stimulate the economy once it’s possible.

GET THE SMALL THINGS RIGHT

It’s not just monetary and fiscal policies that are important. Roosevelt instituted a disastrous legacy of agricultural subsidies and sought to cartelize industry, backed by force of law. Neither policy helped the economy recover. He also took steps to strengthen unions and to keep real wages high. This helped workers who had jobs, but made it much harder for the unemployed to get back to work. One result was unemployment rates that remained high throughout the New Deal period.

Today, President-elect Barack Obama faces pressures to make unionization easier, but such policies are likely to worsen the recession for many Americans.

DON’T RAISE TAXES IN A SLUMP

The New Deal’s legacy of public works programs has given many people the impression that it was a time of expansionary fiscal policy, but that isn’t quite right. Government spending went up considerably, but taxes rose, too. Under President Herbert Hoover and continuing with Roosevelt, the federal government increased income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and “excess profits” taxes.

When all of these tax increases are taken into account, New Deal fiscal policy didn’t do much to promote recovery. Today, a tax cut for the middle class is a good idea — and the case for repealing the Bush tax cuts for higher-income earners is weaker than it may have seemed a year or two ago.

WAR ISN’T THE WEAPON

World War II did help the American economy, but the gains came in the early stages, when America was still just selling war-related goods to Europe and was not yet a combatant. The economic historian Robert Higgs, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, has shown in his 2006 book, “Depression, War, and Cold War,” just how much the war brought shortages and rationing of consumer goods.

While overall economic output was rising, and the military draft lowered unemployment, the war years were generally not prosperous ones. As for today, we shouldn’t think that fighting a war is the way to restore economic health.

YOU CAN’T TURN BAD TO GOOD

The good New Deal policies, like constructing a basic social safety net, made sense on their own terms and would have been desirable in the boom years of the 1920s as well. The bad policies made things worse. Today, that means we should restrict extraordinary measures to the financial sector as much as possible and resist the temptation to “do something” for its own sake.

In short, expansionary monetary policy and wartime orders from Europe, not the well-known policies of the New Deal, did the most to make the American economy climb out of the Depression. Our current downturn will end as well someday, and, as in the ’30s, the recovery will probably come for reasons that have little to do with most policy initiatives.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Americans once were content to elect mere presidents; in Barack Obama, they seem to think they have found an all-powerful savior, able to save the economy and planet simultaneously, by bestowing Washington's blessings on the long list of supplicants making pilgrimages to his door. Every industry and special interest is sending its wish list off to Washington, as if it were the North Pole -- now even the ski industry -- while visions of sugar plums and subsidies dance in their heads. All expect that Obama Claus will reach into his sack and deliver the goodies.

But no, Virginia, there is no Obama Claus.

The president-elect is expected to boost the market, save people from home foreclosures, "create" jobs, bring peace, save the planet and, oh yes, get people out to the ski slopes -- all in the first 100 days, preferably. Maybe at the inauguration, he'll help the disabled to walk and the blind to see.

The old American ideals of limited government and self-reliance are slumbering, if not dead. And that's an alarming development, since American presidents aren't meant to have such powers. The stage is set for either a dangerous (and possibly unconstitutional) expansion of executive branch powers, or, more likely, an upwelling of dismay and disappointment when it becomes clear that the next president isn't a super-hero or a saint, but a human being, with a limited capacity to deliver all that's being promised.

This is the logical result of American political campaigns that have devolved into little more than a litany of expensive and unrealistic promises, about what Washington will do for you, for us, when this person or that party is in charge. Neither candidate can win if he or she acknowledges the limitations of the office, or of Washington's capacity to cure all ills. So they spend the campaign writing checks they can't cash.

The presidency is a potent office; but no president does or should have the power to do all the things Barack Obama is saying he'll do; it's contrary to the system of limited government and checks and balances the founders handed down to us. And the sooner Obama acknowledges those limitations, the better off he and we will be, since anyone who sets himself on such a high pedestal is bound to take a long and terrible fall.

The dysfunctionality of Colorado Springs city government, though all-too-evident to insiders, was on full public display in a courtroom this week, as the jury trial began in the Broadmoor golf course land sale debacle. Mayor Rivera testified that the parcel in dispute, which was owned by Colorado Springs Utilities, couldn't be sold without City Council approval. This directly contradicts the testimony of former CSU CEO Phil Tollefson, who told the court that he had full authority to dispose of surplus land and had done so in the past.

Is one of the men shading the truth, in order to justify actions that caused the city embarrassment and led to a $3.7 breach of contract lawsuit? I doubt it. More likely, they are simply unsure about who has authority to do what, in a city that assumes too many non-governmental functions, through its enterprises, and where clear lines of authority and accountability are sometimes lacking. This underscores the need to undertake a top-down review of the city’s organizational chart, as well as the enterprises, with an eye toward improving efficiency, functionality and accountability.

What a better organizational chart might look like still must be studied and debated; it’s something I hope the city’s Sustainable Funding Committee will take a serious look at. The Limited Government Forum and LocalLibertyOnline.org also stand ready to participate in and facilitate that discussion. But something, clearly, must be done.

The Pueblo Chieftain editorialized today on the water situation I blogged about yesterday. And its hypocrisy was on full display.

The paper argues that it's permissible for the Steel City to acquire more water rights in the lower, agricultural areas of the Arkansas Valley, and to lease back that water to irrigators, "until the day comes when Pueblo will need the water to serve local municipal growth in the future." But not one drop of "Arkansas Valley water" should go out-of-basin, says The Chieftain, especially to Aurora -- "a Denver suburb that has no compunction against drying up the Arkansas Valley to fuel its own urban growth," according to the editorial.

So, it's alright if Pueblo "dries up" the Arkansas Valley in order to quench its thirst for water, but out-of-basin entities -- and even in-basin villains like Colorado Springs -- shouldn't be permitted to do so, even if these are all voluntary transactions between willing participants. The illogic in that position is astounding, But emotion, envy and selfishness are the emotions that Colorado's old-style water warriors have always used to divide the state into hostile camps. Logic and reason just don't apply.

Now one can discern a darker side to the Chieftain's feigned protectiveness of lower Ark water users.

The real motive isn't to keep agriculture, and the rural way of life, alive in the valley. Pueblo just wants all that water for itself, to meet its future needs, and is trying to lock competitors out. It too plans to dry up the Ark, in its own sweet time. And reducing the number of potential water rivals will mean the Steel City can pay bargain basement prices for a precious commodity.

A double standard exists in Pueblo on the issue of water rights. When Colorado Springs or any other city, in-basin or out-of-basin, wants to acquire or exercise water rights -- which are really just another form of property rights, when one thinks about it -- we stand accused of wanting to drive farmers off the land and "dry-up" the Arkansas Valley. This theme is monotonously sounded in the editorial and news pages of The Pueblo Chieftain, which sees itself as the defender of rural folks against the predations of greedy water-grabbers in the city.

So what to make of this story in today's Chieftain, indicating that Pueblo, too, is anxious to acquire new water rights from willing sellers in the lower Arkansas Valley, in order to accommodate growth and meet future needs? And what to make of the fact that we'll read no Chieftain editorials decrying the looming destruction of Arkansas Valley agricultural if such water purchases and transfers occur?

This inconsistency can be summarized in a single word: hypocrisy. Demagogues in the Steel City on the one hand feed public apprehensions and misperceptions on water issues, by stoking the use-versus-them attitudes that lead to so many water conflicts in Colorado, while they reach out with the other hand to "grab" whatever water they need to meet their future requirements.

But there is nothing unjust in these water transactions as long as there is no coercion or intimidation involved and all the parties are willing participants, who receive benefit from the exchange. No one can "grab" water from farmers or ranchers in the lower Ark. These water rights must be purchased (sometimes at a handsome price) from willing sellers. To impede or interfere with these voluntary exchanges tramples not just the rights of the potential buyers, but of the sellers. Yet The Chieftain and others in Pueblo arrogantly presume to know more about what's in the interests of the lower Ark than the people in the lower Ark do.

Similarly arrogant (and unjust) is Pueblo's effort to impede this city's access to water it already holds rights to, by creating obstacles to the Southern Delivery System pipeline project. If successful, this obstructionism amounts to a "taking" of this city's property without just compensation, and it would be interesting to see Colorado Springs Utilities take Pueblo to court, claiming a violation of our 5th Amendment rights.

Not being a lawyer, I don't know how far such a case would get. But as a matter of principle, and in order to make a point, I think it would be worth pursuing, if the impasse with Pueblo isn't soon resolved.

We know it's improper for federal employees to use "company time" or resources to engage in politicking, or to lobby politicians for legislative measures or larger budgets. But shouldn't there also be some restriction on what politicians can do to woo government employees, since they make up such a significant voting block?

Several stories posted on LLO's new aggregators since election day indicate that worker bees inside the federal hive were buzzing with excitement about the outcome: federal workers and their unions were rooting for Obama, understanding that he, as a Democrat and an unreconstructed liberal, is likely to increase their ranks and boost their regulatory power. And now they are looking for him to return the favor. But what wasn't known to the American people until now, weeks after election day, was Obama's campaign within a campaign, aimed at securing the bureaucrat vote by plying federal employees with promises that will be paid for with taxpayer money (and, in the regulatory realm, their freedom). Perhaps it's time that some restrictions be placed on the direct lobbying of federal workers by politicians, not just the other way around.

The Washington Post has the story today:

Obama Wrote Federal Staffers About His Goals
Workers at Seven Agencies Got Detailed Letters Before Election

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 17, 2008; A01

In wooing federal employee votes on the eve of the election, Barack Obama wrote a series of letters to workers that offer detailed descriptions of how he intends to add muscle to specific government programs, give new power to bureaucrats and roll back some Bush administration policies.

The letters, sent to employees at seven agencies, describe Obama's intention to scale back on contracts to private firms doing government work, to remove censorship from scientific research, and to champion tougher industry regulation to protect workers and the environment. He made it clear that the Department of Housing and Urban Development would have an enhanced role in restoring public confidence in the housing market, shaken because of the ongoing mortgage crisis.

Using more specifics than he did on the campaign trail, Obama said he would add staff to erase the backlog of Social Security disability claims. He said he would help Transportation Security Administration officers obtain the same bargaining rights and workplace protections as other federal workers. He even expressed a desire to protect the Environmental Protection Agency's library system, which the Bush administration tried to eliminate.

"I asked him to put it in writing, something I could use with my members, and he didn't flinch," said John Gage, president of the 600,000-member American Federation of Government Employees, who requested that Obama write the letters, which were distributed through the union. "The fact that he's willing to put his name to it is a good sign."

The letters, all but one written Oct. 20, reveal a candidate adeptly tailoring his message to a federal audience and tapping into many workers' dismay at funding cuts and workforce downsizing in the Bush years. Many of Obama's promises would require additional funding, something he acknowledged would be difficult to achieve under the current economic conditions.

Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the letters were intended to communicate to federal workers his position on their agencies.

In a letter to Labor Department employees, Obama wrote: "I believe that it's time we stopped talking about family values and start pursuing policies that truly value families, such as paid family leave, flexible work schedules, and telework, with the federal government leading by example."

Obama wrote to employees in the departments of Labor, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs, along with the TSA, the EPA and the Social Security Administration. Defense was the only area in which he did not make promises requiring additional spending, the letters show.

Some worry that Obama may have overpromised, with program changes and worker benefits that would be impossible to achieve. "That strikes me as smart politics," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "We'll soon find out if he can deliver when he has to deliver his first budget."

Obama repeatedly echoed in his correspondence the longstanding lament of federal workers -- that the Bush administration starved their agencies of staff and money to the point where they could not do their jobs.

In his letter to Labor Department employees, Obama said Bush appointees had thwarted the agency's mission of keeping workers safe, especially in mines. "Our mine safety program will have the staffing . . . needed to get the job done," he wrote.

Obama lamented to EPA staffers that Americans' health and the planet have been "jeopardized outright" because of "inadequate funding" and "the failed leadership of the past eight years, despite the strong and ongoing commitment of the career individuals throughout this agency."

In his letter to Defense Department workers, Obama said he would examine flaws in pay and evaluation systems, but offered no high-cost initiatives.

Ruch said that if Obama cuts Pentagon spending, he will not have to work hard to help the other six agencies.

"These domestic discretionary programs are peanuts in the grand scale of things," Ruch said. "A small diversion from the Iraq conflict, if they were put into Interior, EPA or NASA, those agencies would be in their salad days. The National Park Service is laboring under a [maintenance] backlog that would be cured by a month and a half of Iraq expenditures."

While pledging money to some agencies, Obama also acknowledged that some cuts may be unavoidable.

"Because of the fiscal mess left behind by the current Administration, we will need to look carefully at all departments and programs," he wrote to HUD workers.

Gage said Obama would cut deeply into agencies he finds lacking, and the National Taxpayers Union says there is plenty of opportunity for savings. Congress last year refused to consider a 25 percent cut for 220 federal programs the government rated as ineffective, passing up a savings of $17 billion a year. Obama did not vote on the measure while he was a senator from Illinois.

His letter to HUD employees suggests a resurgence of the huge housing agency. Obama insisted that "HUD must be part of the solution" to the housing crisis and to keeping an estimated 5.4 million more families from losing homes in foreclosure. Several HUD employees cheered Obama's letter, saying they hoped one particular line foreshadowed the end of political appointees who didn't care or know much about the agency's work.

"I am committed to appointing a Secretary, Deputy and Assistant Secretaries who are committed to HUD's mission and capable of executing it," Obama wrote.

Obama also took aim at the Bush administration's focus on privatization, with contractors hired to perform government jobs -- often at princely sums. He complained that a $1.2 billion contract to provide TSA with human resources support unfairly blocked federal employees from competing to do that work.

"We plan specifically to look at work that is being contracted out to ensure that it is fiscally responsible and effective," he told HUD workers. "It is dishonest to claim real savings by reducing the number of HUD employees overseeing a program but increase the real cost of the program by transferring oversight to contracts. I pledge to reverse this poor management practice."

Gage said he is not expecting every civil servant's wish to be granted but he is hopeful.

"I think Obama's going to be fair, he's going to take seriously the missions of these agencies, and he's going to respect federal employees," Gage said. "After the last eight years, that's good enough for me."

Just as predicted in this space a few weeks ago, Pueblo is planning to use its clout in the Democrat-controlled statehouse to derail a decision by the Colorado Department of Corrections to keep its headquarters in Colorado Springs. And the anti-Springs war drums, as usual, are being beaten loudest by The Pueblo Chieftain, which owner and publisher Bob Rawlings uses as a mouthpiece for his pet crusades. Unfortunately, these crusades usually involve vilifying, and putting something over on, Colorado Springs.

Pueblo saw DOC as a prize to be won -- better yet, stolen away from its better-off neighbor to the north -- and pulled out all the stops to make it happen, which included offering the agency various inducements (read: bribes) to sweeten the deal. DOC chose to stay in Colorado Springs, however, fueling the inferiority complex that seems to motivate Rawlings and others in the Steel City. Since then, The Chieftain has been relentlessly reporting and editorializing (it's hard to tell the difference sometimes) on the issue, incrementally building the case for intervention by the legislature.

That goal became explicit in today's Chieftain editorial, which reads as follows:

Subject to review

ONE WAY or the other, it's time for a legislative review of the Colorado Department of Corrections' selection of Colorado Springs over Pueblo as DOC's headquarters.

We commend Rep.-elect Sal Pace of Pueblo for requesting a state auditor's investigation of the decision.

In a letter to State Auditor Sally Symanski this week, Mr. Pace asked for an independent review of the process by which the department ended up selecting a site less than a mile from DOC's existing headquarters in Colorado Springs.

"The proposed Pueblo headquarters location is currently the best equipped to take on the construction and infrastructure requirement needed for the new facility," the Pueblo Democrat said. "However, the DOC has decided to recommend a smaller, more expensive location in the Colorado Springs community." That's right. Pueblo submitted a more cost-efficient proposal, far superior to Colorado Springs' offer based on the department's request for offer criteria. Only after offers were submitted did a DOC site evaluation team add a new factor - headquarters employees' travel expenses, most notably to Denver. In the broad scheme of things, too much weight was given to this add-on factor.

We support Rep.-elect Pace's request, which needs Legislative Audit Committee approval. Although not guaranteed, it's traditional that audit requests from state lawmakers are granted.

In the meantime, we are heartened by the fact that Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, intends to have the Joint Budget Committee also look long and hard into the decision. A veteran of previous JBC service, Sen. Tapia is returning to the panel where requests for state agency expenditures are submitted to the Legislature.

DOC is scheduled to appear before the JBC in late December. So either way - by state audit on the one hand or by budget committee review on the other - state lawmakers will be looking into the matter.

The taxpayers of Colorado will be well-served by making sure the state goes with the best location for DOC's central office and its 240 jobs. Pueblo looks forward to a fair and just outcome.

A mere "review" won't be enough for Rawlings, of course. A "fair and just outcome" isn't what they want, either. They want the Democrat-controlled legislature to do a favor for their Democrat-voting city by overriding DOC's decision and moving the headquarters out of Colorado Springs and down to Pueblo. It isn't about principle; it's about pork. And, just as we've seen in other disputes between the cities, Pueblo will use every means at its disposal to achieve those goals.

Colorado Springs area legislators, no matter their party affiliations or differences on other issues, need to be thinking and planning in advance about how they'll counter Pueblo's predatory designs -- because you can bet that such planning it taking place in Pueblo.

The Frontier airline hanger “deal” was declared dead in The Gazette late last week -- which might have come as a shock to many in the city who, like me, assumed it had kicked the bucket many months ago. The nails in the coffin were hammered home not by Colorado Springs, apparently, but by the company, suggesting that city officials still harbored hopes of reviving it, despite Frontier's financial woes.

This bespeaks a certain desperation --and an appalling lack of judgment -- on the city's part.

The city had agreed to finance and build a $55 million maintenance hanger for the company, which would be paid back over a 30 year lease arrangement. The “deal” was touted as an economic coup for the city, but I harbored doubts, based primarily on the turmoil that even a layperson could see in the industry. What might happen, and who might be on the hook, if Frontier – whose financials and stock values weren’t looking good even at the time -- was sold, merged with another airline, or went belly up? Few people who orchestrated and backed the deal seemed to think seriously about this possibility.

A phoned a few people on City Council at the time, asking what would happen if the airline changed its mind, changed hands or went out of business. A collective shrug was the response. Because the airport authority is an enterprise, the city’s general fund wouldn’t be at risk, I was told. The experts have it all figured out. The taxpayers need not worry.

Not long after, Frontier filed Chapter 11. A delay in the final inking of the deal was the only thing that averted an expensive and embarrassing blunder by the city. When the bankruptcy news broke, before the deal had been set in stone, I thought, “thank goodness, the city dodged a bullet.” Maybe this will have a chastening effect on those who are so eager to “do” economic development “deals” that they take risks or shirk on due diligence. But I was troubled, several weeks later, by a conversation I had with Lionel Rivera. I asked the mayor whether the Frontier hanger deal was dead, given the airline’s recent announcement. But instead of saying it was, he hemmed and hedged, saying something about the fact that companies can emerge from Chapter 11. That’s true, of course. Some do survive bankruptcy. But I was amazed to learn that some in the city, instead of feeling relieved that a debacle had been averted, were still holding out hope of keeping the dubious "deal" alive.

I wonder if Rivera would be as eager to invest $55 million of his own money, or his clients’ money, in a maintenance hanger for a bankrupt airline? I’m betting he’d steer himself and his clients clear of such an investment. Yet he and others in the city had no qualms about using public money to backstop such a venture – and still apparently held out hope of reviving the “deal” even after the risk increased.

I guess it’s always easier to gamble when you’re playing with other people’s money. And that’s precisely why the public needs to be skeptical when local officials and business leaders try to make them unwilling (and unwitting) "partners" in shaky economic development schemes in which they want no part.

Environmentalists, being Utopians at heart, may initially be content to convince Americans of the error of our environmental ways through education, indoctrination and guilt-tripping. But if such non-coercive methods fail to get the desired results -- if the people fail to get the message, to respond accordingly, to bow to environmental-correctness -- the heavy-hand of government is quickly deployed. And that's what makes radical greens and their totalitarian mindset a clear and present danger to our personal and political liberties.

A small but telling case in point can be seen in New York City, which, like virtually every major American metropolis, has jumped with both feet on the "sustainability" bandwagon, and vowed to reduce its huge "carbon footprint" in an effort to save the planet. But some New Yorkers haven't gotten with the program by curbing their use of plastic shopping bags -- one of the silly ways some urban dwellers atone for their environmental sins. So now the city's mayor for life, Michael Bloomberg -- following a predictable path of other "coercive Utopians" wants to use his taxing power to punish environmental offenders.

Here's how The New York Times frames the story:

"In its struggle to make New York more green, the Bloomberg administration has tried discouraging people from using plastic bags. It has taken out ads beseeching residents to use cloth bags and set up recycling bins for plastic bags at supermarkets.

But now the carrots have been put away, and the stick is out: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has called for charging shoppers 6 cents for every plastic bag needed at the register.

If the proposal passes, New York City would follow the lead of many European countries and become one of the first places in the United States to assess a so-called plastic bag tax.

Seattle voters will weigh in on a similar measure next year, and other places, like Los Angeles and Dallas, have studied the idea.

City officials estimate that the fee could generate $16 million a year, a figure that Mr. Bloomberg would no doubt appreciate, given the lingering and concussive effects of the global economic crisis on the city’s economy . . .

But while the fee would burnish Mr. Bloomberg’s environmental record, it might not be a lasting source of revenue. Just a few weeks after Ireland adopted a similar, though much heftier tax in 2002 — charging shoppers 33 cents a bag — plastic bag use dropped 94 percent, and within a year, nearly everyone in that country had purchased reusable cloth bags. Still, the mayor believes that the 6-cent fee would have a major impact on consumers’ behavior.

Environmentalists like the sound of Mr. Bloomberg’s idea. But from the corner deli to the high-end grocery store, other New Yorkers are not so sure."

Let's hope they rebel.

The $16 million windfall the city would enjoy as a result of the grocery bag tax is probably a greater motivating factor in Bloomberg's push than a desire to save the planet by curbing the use of plastic bags. But a lot of cynical political leaders have discovered that going "green" provides good political cover for using government power in ways that would otherwise be unacceptable to most citizens. And by calling it a "fee" rather than a "tax," Bloomberg is using another ploy -- another attempt to skirt the political process -- that might be vaguely familiar to residents of the Pikes Peak region.

"It sounds like a tax, but officials call it a fee," reports the Times. "The distinction is important: A fee requires approval only from the City Council, while a tax requires approval from the State Legislature."