May 2009

The folks who run and staff Memorial Health System recognize many advantages in being an appendage of the city. But a continuing source of frustration for them, obviously, is the need to comply with open records laws, as any other government entity must. The Gazette reported yesterday that Memorial spent $80,000 on a futile effort to fight the newspaper's document requests. And back when I was at the paper, I once got an earful from a former high-ranking Memorial official about the competitive disadvantages the institution faces, vis-a-vis Penrose, when it is forced to publicly disclose information it considered privileged or proprietary.

I'll say here what I told the official that day: "If you don't like it, go private."

I didn't say it vindictively, but constructively, since I'm sure the open records issue is only one of many frustrations Memorial executives and staff have with being a public institution. The pluses and minuses of privatizing the hospital aren't just fodder for discussion outside hospital walls; they're undoubtedly the subject of debate within the hospital as well. And while the need to comply with open records laws wouldn't seem to constitute a tipping point of some sort, which would drive Memorial insiders to support the idea of severing the relationship and setting the health system free, to operate independently under private control, there might come a day when a consensus forms, inside Memorial, that it's in the best interest of both parties to do so.

The pros and cons of selling the enterprise are the subject for a much longer post (or posts). My point today is that such a parting of ways, if it ever comes, doesn't have to be a bitter and angry divorce. It could be an amicable split, in which both parties recognize the benefits and leave happily, vowing to continue their friendship. The city will survive and thrive without a hospital to fuss and fret over. And Memorial will survive and thrive without a city looking over its shoulder.

If a separation could be negotiated in which all sides -- city, enterprise and public -- see some benefit, is that really such an alarming scenario to contemplate? I don't think so. But it will require that reasoned discussion prevail over the raw emotion that seems to bubble up whenever this issue is debated. Perhaps it will require the appointment of an impartial mediator, who can sit down with various stakeholders, hear their arguments for and against separation, and suggest a resolution with which all parties, and the general public, can see a benefit. It can then be placed on the ballot for final judgment.

As with any compromise, no one will come away completely satisfied. But is everyone completely satisfied with the arrangement we have now?

Reaction has been mixed to my proposal to put any second USOC deal on the ballot this fall, which got some play Wednesday on KOAA-TV.

Rank and file citizens I’ve heard from seem supportive, not surprisingly. A number of city insiders, on the other hand, seem wary, based on the assumption (questionable in my view) that voters would automatically reject any second version, or that USOC will take its bats and balls and go elsewhere, in a huff, if we stoop to asking voters what they think on the matter.

Such a referendum would be undignified, even humiliating, for the USOC, according to this argument. But it pales in comparison to the indignities suffered by the city and the USOC as a result of the original deal, which was negotiated in secret and rammed through with virtually no public process (or due diligence) by the current City Council, minus one. Compared to the debacle this City Council helped design, a public debate would seem downright dignified.

I appreciate the feedback, even from critics. But most of the objections are debatable, in my view.

It shows a real mistrust and misreading of voters to assume that they won’t support a rescue plan that makes sense. I happen to believe a well-crafted package – one that’s affordable, sensible and reciprocal (meaning that it confers tangible benefits to both the city and USOC) would win voter approval. And it’s my belief that the surest way to get such a plan is for negotiators to know in advance that they might have to sell it to the public at large.

An overwhelming majority of city residents value the organization's presence, I’m sure. And they want it to stay, just as I do. Local folk will vote to tax themselves or take on debt if it’s for something tangible, which they deem a necessity, and from which they can see a city-wide benefit. Keeping the USOC headquartered here would seem to meet those criteria. Whether it’s perceived as affordable won’t be known until details of a new plan emerge. And I would hope members of council would be agnostic on that issue until details are divulged.

But it doesn’t help to keep things affordable when members of council are out in the local papers, saying that they're willing to spend virtually anything as long as the city we can get a measurable return on investment. It won’t help the city negotiate something reasonable and equitable when it’s perceived that members of council are ready to pull out their rubber stamp once again. It’s this predisposition to approval that leaves the city vulnerable to a shakedown, and perhaps even a repeat of the first blunder.

This council had its shot and it blew it, to put it bluntly. Public confidence has been shaken as a result. The situation is exacerbated by unresolved ethics questions about the mayor, who remains a city negotiator despite questions about his role in the first deal. Others on City Council apparently are comfortable with the situation, since they’ve done nothing that the public can see to pressure Mayor Rivera to clear up these questions, or at least remove himself as a negotiator until the issues are resolved. But I think the public is looking on with dismay.

This further taints a process that seems to be following a familiar pattern: secrecy; expediency; self-congratulations. That was a recipe for disaster the first time around. It’s going to be hard, under these circumstances, to get public buy-in for a second deal, unless things are done differently. All I’m proposing is that we do things differently – in a more transparent, careful, professional and methodical fashion – next time. A ballot measure would guarantee a public process and debate that a decision of his magnitude merits.

Some higher-ups at the USOC might feel it’s beneath their dignity to see a second deal put to a vote – to have to campaign, in essence, for overt taxpayer support of the kind that’s contemplated here. But why? This is a debate the city has been having, informally, for many years – since at least as far back as the attempt by a few developers to enmesh the USOC in a downtown convention center project. When tens of millions of taxpayers dollars are involved (not to mention an end-run of TABOR through the use of certificates of participation), it seems only fair that we consult the people footing the bill.

It seems arrogant for the USOC to simply assume it’s entitled to this level of support -- particularly in these tough fiscal and economic times. The USOC, if it’s truly interested in remaining in Colorado Springs, should welcome the opportunity for a city-wide debate about the merits of a continued partnership. But the city often seems more interested in catering to the USOC than the USOC seems interested in partnering with the city, as evidenced by its on-again, off-again permission to use the "rings" logo.

A few people I heard from either misrepresent my proposal or impugn my motives – some suggesting that this proposal is a roundabout way to scuttle a second deal. So let me be clear. I would like to see the USOC remain headquartered here. I appreciate the asset they are to the city. But that doesn’t mean I’m predisposed, as Jerry Heimlicher seems to be, to sign on the dotted line, no matter the conditions. That’s the sort of approach that got the city into this mess in the first place.

I’m agnostic on the next deal until I see the details. Isn’t that the attitude we would want members of City Council to take? How can I say in advance that I’m for it or against it, as long as it remains shrouded in secrecy? What kind of negotiator signals in advance that price is no object – and that he’ll take any deal that comes along? Is Jerry Heimlicher for something that hasn’t yet been made public, and before his constituents have been heard from on the matter?

That’s the predisposition to say “yes” I fear in this City Council. It's an invitation to the exploitation of taxpayers. It’s the sort of reckless rush to judgment that created this problem in the first place.

Jerry Heimlicher told KOAA that this proposal comes from a “few people” who oppose incentives of any kind (meaning me and someone else, I assume). But plenty of city residents have reservations about this City Council’s eagerness to use taxpayer money for such purposes, as evidenced by the voting down of 1A (a ballot measure Jerry gushed over). Or doesn’t he believe that vote signals wider public skepticism about the use, and possible abuse, of so-called incentives?

He also said in his sound bites that I presume to speak for the people. Not so. All my proposal is intended to do is allow the people to speak for themselves, by having a direct say in how their tax dollars are used by the city. I trust they will make the right decision, when presented with the facts.

Jerry, apparently, does not.

It most likely won't be called "1A," or the "jobs now" initiative, if city leaders are smart. But as predicted in this space several times, City Council this fall will almost certainly put a measure on the ballot aimed at capturing the tax revenue it lunged for but failed to grasp when 1A went down in flames in April. How do I know? Because I read it in The Gazette.

The tell-tale tidbit was buried in the final few paragraphs of this report about another measure on April's ballot, 1B. Voters narrowly approved that one, allowing the city to keep $1.2 million in over-collected property taxes for use on "essential city services." But city staff underestimated the over-collection by more than $422,000 -- oops! -- which a majority on council decided they couldn't in good conscience keep. It will be returned to utility customers in the form of a $1.92 refund.

It was at the end of this story that an equally intriguing item drops from the sky:

"The city also asked voters in April to extend a property tax, which is set to expire at the end of this year to pay for economic development efforts. Voters overwhelmingly rejected Issue 1A, known as the jobs initiative.

But council members instructed City Manager Penelope Culbreth-Graft to return with options for extending the property tax possibly for the November ballot."

Without knowing what options the City Manager will present, it would be premature to say what stance, if any, Local Liberty Action might take on the issue. We aren't reflexively opposed to all tax hikes, contrary to some perceptions. It was the ill-defined and half-baked nature of the "jobs now" proposal, as well as our serious reservations about the slippery slope the city would be on once a dedicated fund existed for paying business bribes, that served as the core of our objections. And an overwhelming number of voters shared those concerns, obviously.

If they're smart, city leaders this time will come back with something specific, concrete, measurable and equitable -- something that if approved will benefit all residents and is readily recognized as serving a legitimate function of government. That still won't guarantee approval, in these tough economic times. But these seem like must-haves for any measure that will stand a chance of passage.

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman is a Marine, not U.S. Army. His congressional district is in the Denver area, not Colorado Springs. That means he easily could have ducked out of the donnybrook over possible future expansion of the Pinon Canyon training site, and side-stepped unnecessary controversy by remaining silent on the issue. That's something a typical politician would do.

But the former Colorado state treasurer can see far enough beyond purely parochial concerns to grasp the potential long-term implications for the country and the state if Gov. Bill Ritter signs HB-1317, a measure designed to drive another nail in the coffin of the expansion plan. The Marine in Coffman isn't afraid of a fight, even when the odds are stacked against him. His battle to keep Ritter from signing the bill shows that Coffman isn't your typical self-protective politician, but is willing to take the risks that come with showing real leadership. And it's something that those of us who aren't his constituents should appreciate.

The Denver Post today has a write-up on Coffman's continuing fight against HB-1317, and for Fort Carson. Unlike a few others in Colorado's congressional delegation, who either support the measure or have straddled on the issue, Coffman understands that the outright closure of Fort Carson isn't the only thing at stake, once the perception gets out that Colorado is unfriendly to the military.

Here's the Post:

"The buzzards are already circling Fort Carson, a major employer in Colorado Springs, Coffman said.

At a recent Armed Services Committee hearing, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told Pentagon officials that his state would be happy to have the Army if Colorado doesn't want it, offering up an underused training area where "you would not be sued by private property owners."

While the Army has not publicly suggested it would downsize Fort Carson without the training area expansion, military officials privately told Coffman's staff that at least one brigade combat team is in jeopardy. Army officials have made similar, if less precise comments to other members of Colorado's delegation, congressional staff say.

Any decision to downsize the base is likely years away, but Coffman said the Army's immediate plan to add another brigade to Fort Carson (1,920 troops) is more immediately at risk — especially if budget cuts reduce the number of brigades the Army had planned to add at all bases by 2011 from a total of three to two or even one.

"If they don't do all three, which is likely, Colorado is not in the hunt," he said . . . .

. . . . . Publicly, the Army has said that the expanded training range is vital and still an important priority, though recently it shifted money to pay for the expansion in the Pentagon budget this year to another base in Louisiana.

Coffman said that any effort to downsize Fort Carson may not start with the Army at all, but with officials from other states, who could put together incentives to lure the brigades now stationed in Colorado, including promises to provide infrastructure.

And he said the Army's growing frustration with the political climate in Colorado could be decisive.

"I don't think that the Army will make the first move. It will be other members of Congress that take a look and see an anti-Army feeling among a lot of key elected officials" in Colorado, Coffman said.

"There is going to be blood in the water soon."

There's still an opportunity for Ritter to do the right thing, for Colorado and for the country, by vetoing the bill. That won't make expansion inevitable; that's still a long shot, in my view, considering the political forces arrayed against it. But it will send a signal back to Washington, and to out-of-state members of Congress, that Coloradans aren't taking their win-win partnership with the Pentagon for granted -- and that the rational people, not the radicals, are still in charge out here.

"I'm OK with issuing whatever amount we can demonstrate [will give us] a return on investment," Councilor Jerry Heimlicher says, adding he would go along "if you told me $30, $35, $40 million."

He's only one of nine on council, thankfully. We can only hope his colleagues aren't quite as eager to open the city's checkbook -- and aren't out airing their open-checkbook attitudes in public, when a renegotiation of the deal is still going on behind closed doors. Statements like that can only whet one side's appetite for ratcheting-up demands -- demands that average residents may greet with more skepticism, or even anger, given the mess city officials made of the original "deal."

I think any USOC salvage effort is going to be greeted with a healthy dose of skepticism, even if the taxpayers' contribution remains the same or is reduced. All the more so because the city's chief negotiator, Mayor Lionel Rivera, is walking around with a cloud of ethics allegations over his head -- a cloud he could easily lift by simply declaring that he never had business dealings with LandCo or Ray Marshall. All the secretiveness doesn't help, since it echos the first go around. And if Heimlicher and others on council think that they can just roll this thing out and ram it through, with virtually no public process, as they did the first time, they should think again.

There's one way to ensure that any new USOC deal has the public buy-in it should. There's one way to see if the public shares Heimlicher's open-checkbook attitudes. There's one way to ensure that, this time around, there's a city-wide debate about the wisdom and propriety of what a handful of insiders are negotiating.

We should put it to a vote.

Not a vote of City Council, whose competence to make such calls is now in question, but a vote of the people, this fall, as a ballot measure.

Doing this might complicate, and cast a shadow over, ongoing negotiations, no doubt. It might slow the process down, and add uncertainty. All the better, in my opinion. If those doing the negotiating understand in advance that this thing has to sell city-wide, not just with the nine on council but with citizens-at-large, it might help minimize the temptation to increase the burden on taxpayers. If they have to sell the deal to voters, they'll have to answer harder questions than they did the first time around, forcing them to do more due diligence. A better deal will probably result. If they have to sell it to voters, we'll have the time it takes to investigate whether the "return on investment" that Heimlicher talks about is legit. If they have to sell it to voters, any "deal" that is approved will have a measure of legitimacy and buy-in that the original deal never really did.

Yes, I know, we'll hear a number of council people argue that these are the calls they're elected to make: that putting it to a vote is contrary to the whole idea of representative government and drifts us closer to the dangers of "direct democracy." But that's just ego speaking. And let's face it: many of the people on this council were on council when the original deal was approved, meaning that they have a strong interest in voting "yes," if only to cover the present stench with the sweet scent of roses. That could impair their objectivity on the matter. That could throw a shadow over any new deal.

We would like to trust City Council to make such calls. But that trust, at the moment, has been shaken by the unfolding debacle, as well as unresolved ethics allegations involving the mayor. One way for council to regain the public's trust is for it to show more trust in the public, by putting any new USOC deal on the ballot and letting the people decide. If it's a deal that makes sense, and represents a true partnership between the city and the USOC, I have confidence the voters will approve it. If it doesn't make sense to voters, it probably isn't in the city's best interest.

Show a little more trust in the voters, City Council; resolve now to put any new USOC deal on the ballot this fall.

It might be tempting to joke that Barack Obama's unilateral overhaul of federal fuel economy standards (isn't Congress supposed to have a say in such matters?) is a full employment program for crash test dummies, and trauma room physicians, since the lighter, less-crashworthy vehicles that result will almost certainly increase the risk of serious injuries and fatalities for motorists. But it really isn't a laughing matter that the Automaker-in-Chief is treating the rest of us like crash test dummies.

And dummies Americans are if they aren't alarmed by the ramifications of what's going down in Washington and Detroit, where federal tax dollars and raw power are being used to coerce a consensus on Obama's latest regulatory onslaught -- a point made by The Denver Post's David Harsanyi in this excellent column.

It's interesting that the reflex-regulators in the Democratic Party will spare no public expense or government effort in trying to ameliorate some statistically insignificant public health threats on the one hand, while shrugging off the additional safety risks that result from the federal government's meddling with fuel economy standards on the other.

If there's a 1 in 6 million chance that trace levels of arsenic in drinking water could theoretically give someone cancer someday, as determined by lab rats, the regulate-firsters are demanding that something be done, no matter the costs and burdens of compliance, no matter the tenuousness of the causal links involved. Yet the well-documented fact that lighter vehicles are also more dangerous vehicles -- meaning that forcing motorists into smaller, lighter vehicles increases their risk of serious injury or death on the roadways -- has never been a deterrent to those who believe they can save the planet by making use all drive Yugos.

Kudos to USA Today for at least noting that Barack's Obamamobile won't come without trade-offs, not just in higher costs but also in lives lost:

"The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually. Even though the standards were updated in recent years to reduce the incentive for automakers to sell more small cars by allowing different fuel-economy targets for different vehicles, the fastest way to make cars more fuel-efficient is to make them smaller. Some safety experts worry that the administration's green focus could reverse progress made in reducing the highway death toll.

But otherwise, there's been precious little mention of Obama's fatal conceit in the "mainstream" media. A panel "discussion" on the subject on CNN Tuesday had a former colleague of mine, Sam Kazman, who heads up the Death by Regulation Project at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, trying to make this very point, while being snapped at and sneered at by the host and 5 other panelists, none of whom took these points seriously. "No bias"? What bull.

If Obama had done something that carried even the slightest chance of endangering polar bears or spotted owls, these same panelists would be gnawing their fingernails and wringing their hands. But the fact that people might die as a result of Obama's regulatory zeal just didn't compute. The possibility that misdirected government action might actually cause harm or decrease public safety just boggles their minds -- it's like a pony pondering a Rubik's cube. But that's America for you.

The Obamatons deny that these mandates put Americans at risk.

"The Obama administration maintains the new fuel standards can be met without forcing more small cars into the market. "Because every (size) category has to get more efficient, if the soccer mom wants to buy her minivan, it will be a more fuel-efficient minivan. If someone wants to buy a big SUV, it will be a more fuel-efficient SUV," said Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change. She said companies can use advanced technologies to improve fuel efficiency without dramatically changing their fleets."

Right, right: All we need to do is order companies to comply, and throw enough money at the problem, and anything is possible. We put a man on the moon, didn't we? (Well, yes, back in 1969 -- but we'd have a hell of a time repeating that feat today).

This is Field of Dreams policy-making: Mandate it and it will happen. Just like we'll be generating 20 percent of our electricity from windmills by 2025. Just like we'll grow our way to energy independence with ethanol. Just like we'll find a better way to store nuclear waste than Yucca Mountain. Just like we'll reduce America's "carbon footprint" to 1990 levels by 2020 -- or whatever the pie-in-the-sky promise of the day is. And just like we'll erase the federal budget deficit tomorrow by passing $3 trillion budgets today.

Carol Browner says there's nothing to worry about because the mandates apply across the board. Everyone will be downsizing simultaneously. But surely she's heard of something called the used car market. Not everyone can simultaneously get into a sleek new Obamamobile, especially since these mandates will come with a hefty price tag, so many bigger, heavier, gas-guzzling Bushmobiles will remain on the road for decades to come. And what happens when one of these lighter, more fuel-efficient Obamamobiles meets head-on with a bigger, heavier, gas-guzzling Bushmobile? Riders in the Obamamobile in most cases will get the worst if it. But they'll go to their graves, or to the emergency room, with their minds at ease, knowing that they've done their part, and made the ultimate sacrifice, in order to help curtail greenhouse gases.

Unless Super President can revoke the laws of physics -- which just might be possible in his case -- the next round of government-mandated downsizing will lead to more fatalities than would otherwise occur. But apparently this, in the eyes of Obamatons, is an acceptable price to pay for lowering our dependence of foreign oil (which won't happen, in all honesty, because an ever-increasing number of American drivers will continue to push demand for oil and gas higher, even if they all drive Obamamobiles, overwhelming any efficiencies realized through these mandates) and reducing our carbon treadprints.

Hey all you crash test dummies out there! Don't forget to buckle up. There's one messy car crash waiting at the end of Obama's joy ride.

I imagine that a good number of Fort Carson personnel live in the Pueblo area. Many shop and eat and party there. Some may choose it as a retirement spot. That means Pueblo and Colorado Springs, those famously feuding cities, would seem to share a common interest in keeping the Mountain Post off future base closure lists, by supporting efforts to ensure it remains a viable training facility. So what, other than a belly full of anti-Colorado Springs bile, explains The Pueblo Chieftain editorial page's continuing efforts to cheer on the forces seeking to permanently slam the door on future expansion of the Pinon Canyon training site?

Colorado Springs and El Paso County obviously reap the greatest direct economic benefit from Fort Carson. But Pueblo, as close as it is, must also look at the base as an economic engine of importance -- not to mention a military asset of continuing value to the entire country. But the Chieftain, acting it seems out of blind spite for anything that might benefit Colorado Springs, has thrown in with those in Southern Colorado who began by expressing legitimate fears about the Army's use of eminent domain, but who have since adopted an angry, take-no-prisoners attitude, adamantly opposed to Pinon Canyon expansion under any circumstances.

The latest lashing-out at the U.S. Army wasn't a bill designed to restrict the use of eminent domain, but one aimed at blocking the state of Colorado from selling or leasing land to Fort Carson in the event that it had private parties willing to sell Fort Carson more acreage. That's a radical shift of emphasis from the issues that sparked this controversy, as the Denver Post's Vince Carroll pointed out a few days back. Opponents have continued shifting the goal posts, and re-casting their objections, and launching new attacks on a downsized and re-worked Army proposal, in what's morphed into a case of knee-jerk, anti-military obstructionism. The Army hasn't completely giving up on expansion, reportedly. But its recent shifting of funds to another facility is one clear (and potentially ominous) signal that it will direct future resources to more hospitable places.

Perhaps The Chieftain and other expansion-bashers are delighted by the Army's retreat. Nothing short of a complete and unconditional surrender will satisfy some folks. But the gloating will end in Pueblo soon enough, if Carson's inability to train additional troops, and to provide adequate training space for the fighting force of the 21st and 22nd Century, land it on a future base closure list. The gloating will end when all those dollars and jobs go away. It won't impact the ranchers-turned-activists down south. They're content living a 19th Century existence and don't want their little island of economic and cultural isolation disturbed. But Pueblo will feel the pain -- and perhaps come to regret the short-sighted, anti-military signals that the city's daily newspaper is sending out to the rest of the country.

Colorado dodged a bullet in the last base closure round. Carson was fortunate to actually benefit from the process. Yet Colorado showed little gratitude when the Army raised the possibility of expanding the training site in order to accommodate a bigger mission and more troops. What the Pentagon got in thanks was hostility, vilification, statehouse measures aimed at fragging the proposal -- what amounted to a rolling-up of the welcome mat in Colorado.

One can't help wonder whether folks back in Washington are having regrets about shifting additional assets to Carson in the last go-around. One can't help wonder if they're taking note of Colorado's anti-military attitudes. You can be sure that bases in more military-friendly states, and their representatives in Congress, are taking note. They might even be clipping these Chieftain editorials for future reference.

In a decision that could loom large when future base closure commissions convene, and might return to haunt him in the 2010 election season, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter has confirmed that he'll sign a bill (HB 1317) aimed at hammering yet another nail in the coffin of Fort Carson expansion. The Pueblo Chieftain had the scoop yesterday.

"Gov. Bill Ritter told The Pueblo Chieftain on Saturday that he will sign a bill prohibiting the U.S. Army from expanding its 238,000-acre Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site.

The announcement was Ritter's first public commitment to signing into law HB 1317.

Also called the Landowner and School Protection Act, the bill will bar the sale or leasing of any state land overseen by the Colorado State Land Board to the Army for expansion of the Southern Colorado training site.

"I have worked with the ranching community, talked to them about their issues, (and) we just settled on the fact that if the U.S. Army was going to take property, they really needed to make its case. They haven't done that," Ritter said in a phone interview. "I think this bill was just one thing, for the time being, that provides a safety net for farmers and ranchers down there that they won't be part of the expansion. It may not be the last discussion we have on Piñon Canyon, but it's important to put this safety net in place."

It's odd that Ritter evokes the “safety net" to justify his signature on this anti-military measure, since there’s no greater safety net enjoyed by Americans than the one provided by our well-trained, combat-ready armed forces. Those forces require adequate space in which to train, if they're going to minimize casualties while providing that safety net. An expanding battlefield (combined with growing limitations on the use of existing training space) requires more training space. But such reasoning evidently doesn’t compute now that Colorado is firmly in the control of Democrats, whose anti-military attitudes are showcased by this episode.

Ritter’s use of the term “safety net” implies that the Army is some sort of malevolent force, out to destroy Southeastern Colorado just for the hell of it, when it’s one of the few federal entities that actually perform a vital, constitutionally-sanctioned mission, from which all Americans – even ranchers – benefit. One might think the U.S. Army would get a sympathetic ear, and the benefit of the doubt, as a result. But the rhetoric employed by expansion opponents consistently paints the Army as the villain and the enemy, rather than the defender of Coloradans – as the Denver Post's Vince Carroll points out in this typically spot-on piece. And Ritter seems to share these attitudes.

The Army did make its case, repeatedly, arguing that new technology, longer-range weapons, an expanding battlefield and more troops at Fort Carson mean that it needs more room to train. But opponents of expansion – most of whom didn’t serve and don’t know anything about the military – continue to dismiss the Army's arguments, by setting an impossibly high standard of proof. Instead, they preferred to pander to angry and irrational ranchers.

The Army didn't help its cause by mishandling the public relations side of things, whether as a result of incompetence, arrogance, bureaucratic inertia or a combination thereof. But once the political tide turned against the Army, nothing the Pentagon or Fort Carson could say would have turned things around. Minds were closed among Democrats as soon as the ranchers climbed up on their high horses and turned themselves into another victim group.

Ritter really didn't want to hear the Army's case. U.S. Rep. John Salazar and his brother, Ken, didn't want to hear the Army's case, either. Neither did Sen. Mark Udall. Colorado's Democrat-controlled legislature didn't want to hear the Army's case. Most of these “leaders” feigned an open mind on the issue, in order to avoid appearing anti-military, all the while voting and acting in ways that signaled close-minded opposition. But these are Democrats, in whom a distrust of the military is DNA-deep (despite the party's efforts to distance itself from the overt Pentagon-bashing of the Vietnam era). Few expansion opponents ever served in the military. Fewer still know the first think about military hardware, military training or military war-fighting doctrine. Most of what they think they know on the subject they learned in a movie theater. They lose nothing, politically speaking, by supporting measures like HB 1317, which take gratuitous slaps at the Army, all the while couching their obstructionist in concerns about property rights and the "little guy" in rural Colorado.

Funny: Democrats don't give a hoot about property rights when Endangered Species Act regulations are involved, or when some farmer runs afoul of the feds for disturbing a protected "wetland," or when some nifty new urban redevelopment project requires the use of eminent domain to help remove stubborn holdouts. They don’t give a hoot about property rights and cattle culture when their environmentalist allies are working to deprive ranchers of their grazing rights, or pushing sage grouse protections designed to move ranchers off the range. They offer up no property rights “safety net” when historic preservationists begin dictating terms to property owners.

Yet they suddenly become defenders of property rights when the Army wants additional training space. It's a glaring, but telling, inconsistency.

Here was an opportunity for Ritter to move beyond being a politician and do something governor-like. Vetoing the bill would have rankled a few ranchers, and might have cost him a few votes in the next election, but it would have been the right thing to do for Colorado, since the continued viability of Fort Carson and other military installations is of vital economic importance not just to El Paso County but to the entire state. The expansion plans were more than likely going nowhere, given the political forces aligned against them. The Army had scaled-back its original plans and seemed committed to working with willing sellers. The ranchers had won all the public relations and political battles.

But then along comes 1317, which seemed like an unnecessary poke in the Pentagon’s eye – a case of overkill, which could come back to haunt Colorado when future base-closure decisions are made. The smart and statesman-like thing for Ritter to do would have been to call a halt to the paranoid rhetoric, and inflammatory Pentagon-baiting, by vetoing the bill, leaving the door ajar for a future compromise, just in case attitudes and circumstances change. But Ritter flunked the governorship test, once again, by pandering to noisy special interest groups rather than doing the right thing for all Colorado. And perhaps it's this inability to be anything better than a predictable, garden-variety politico that explains the governor's slumping polling numbers.

There's no more waffling, straddling, hedging, obfuscating or equivocating on U.S. Rep. John Salazar's part. He's declared that the U.S. Army will never make a compelling-enough case for Fort Carson expansion to win his approval, according to today's Pueblo Chieftain. Pinon Canyon expansion isn't going to happen while he's in Congress, Salazar says he told the Army's chief of staff, who had asked the congressman to keep an open mind on the issue. Salazar's mind is officially closed, apparently. End of story. Take your soldiers elsewhere to train. Preserving cattle culture in Southeastern Colorado must take precedent over national security and military preparedness, in his view.

Salazar also said -- and this might be the real news in the story -- that he's certain Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, will sign HB1317, a bill passed by the Colorado statehouse that attempts to erect yet another obstruction to expansion by barring the state from selling or even leasing state lands for that purpose. "I spoke with Governor Ritter this week and he indicated he will sign the state lands bill," Salazar told the newspaper -- which is a pretty definitive statement on the subject.

I also believe Ritter will sign the bill, for reasons presented in an earlier post. But this situation does present Republicans with a potential wedge issue to use against Salazar and Ritter when reelection time comes around. Former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, a Republican who once represented Salazar's district and is planning a run at Ritter in 2010, recently laid down a marker on the issue, by urging Ritter to veto HB1317, in the interest of preserving future options and not sending anti-military signals back to Washington. If he can paint Ritter as just another anti-military Democrat, who's indifferent to the fate of important military bases (and jobs generators) in the state, McInnis might get some traction out of the situation.

How the issue plays for -- or against -- Salazar is a little more fuzzy. Clearly, Salazar is counting on his anti-expansion stance winning him votes in Southeastern Colorado and in the Democrat stronghold of Pueblo, where the Chieftain's editorial page has egged-on the obstructionism. But not a huge number of votes come from Southeastern Colorado. Pueblo can't be completely indifferent to the long-term fate of Fort Carson, due to proximity, and since many Carson soldiers live and shop there. And whether Salazar's pandering to anti-Army sentiment will play well in other parts of his sprawling district, especially the more conservative Western Slope, is an open question.

Remember: That was, until relatively recently, a Republican-leaning district, represented by McInnis. And the former congressman's continued open mind on the issue, in contrast to Salazar's now-adamant opposition to expansion, which could strike many of his constituents as unpatriotic or anti-military, could leave Salazar vulnerable if Republicans can put up a good challenger and frame the issue correctly.

It seems to me, early though it may be, that Pinon Canyon might be shaping up as a pivotal issue in at least two key Colorado races in 2010, if somewhat demoralized, on-the-defensive Republicans can bring effective fire to bear on the Democrats who seem to care more about cows than about combat-readiness.

Due to a quirk of geography, folks wanting to hike Barr Trail or tackle The Incline have to pass through Manitou Springs to do so. That, and a shortage of parking space near the trail heads, makes the hikers and runners tempting cash cows, tempting revenue generators, for the money-hungry little town.

For a long time, Manitou was content to reap whatever benefits came courtesy of the pass-through traffic -- the runners or hikers who quenched their burning thirsts with a post-Incline margarita at The Loop, for instance. But no longer. Now Manitou intends to take advantage of geography, and the situation, and a captive audience, by starting to charge parking "fees" -- which amounts to a "trailhead tax" or a "trailhead toll," unless you live close enough to walk or run to the trail.

How much will be charged is yet to be decided (which means that readers can still weigh in on the matter, if they care enough). "Fines were set at the Tuesday meeting -- $15 for overtime parkers and $25 for unpermitted parkers -- but the fee will be set at a later Council meeting, after the city's parking authority makes recommendations," reports The Gazette. "'There's been everything from $1 to $10 bandied around, but nothing official,'" City Planner Michelle Anthony said."

It's a politically painless charge to levy, since many who use the trails are either out-of-towners (who always make easy targets for taxation, since they typically don't or can't object) or non-residents (many of whom are relatively affluent fitness buffs from down the hill, who may be more than happy to see fees imposed if it cuts down on the crowds). Some Manitou residents -- those who don't make a living selling margaritas or food to thirsty or hungry pass-throughs -- might also cheer the new tax, since it potentially reduces the number of outsiders clogging up the place, even while squeezing those who still come through for every possible dollar.

The question of whether it's the correct, or the fair, or the hospitable thing to do -- the question of whether something important is lost when the formerly free hike up Barr Trail or the Incline becomes a shakedown opportunity for Manitou Springs -- won't really be debated much, since most of those who will pay the "trailhead tax" either don't know it's coming, or aren't paying enough attention, or will willingly pay it in order to thin the crowds and keep the riff-raff at bay.

It's a form of "taxation without representation," to borrow a term that might still jingle faint memory bells with some folks. It's a tax increase imposed without the consent of those who are most likely to have to pay it. It turns the formerly free pleasures of hiking into the mountains into a "pay to play" shakedown. But no matter. Manitou will levy the fees because it can levy the fees, while facing little resistance from insiders. It has those funky new "streetscape" improvements to pay for. And why let a good revenue source go to waste?

There are plenty of empty and annoying rituals in official Washington: the pompous playing of "Hail to the Chief" when the president materializes; tiresome standing ovations during the annual State of the Union address; the State of the Union address itself. But among the most silly, at least in modern Washington, is the ritualistic axing of wasteful and superfluous federal programs in the president's budget.

Every president in recent memory, no matter the party, proposed bringing the hatchet down on wasteful, duplicative, anachronistic programs. And each president, when he did so, knew full well that none of the targeted programs would be eliminated or even cut, once Congress intervened. The best any bona fide budget hawk can hope for, realistically, is holding the growth of such programs to 5 or 10 percent in the next budget cycle.

Barack Obama late last week joined the pantheon of recent presidents to go through these meaningless motions, by offering up his own list of 121 program cuts or eliminations -- many of which I recognize from my days fighting wasteful government spending at Citizens Against Government Waste, back in the mid-1990s. That's how long some of these cutting-edge ideas have been around. It's especially incongruous (and cynical) in Obama's case, however, since he, like his Republican predecessor, is simultaneously proposing expenditures that will grow government and lead to Mount Everest-like deficits for as far as the eye can see.

Here's how the charade unfolds, in three acts. First, the president inserts the program cuts into his budget blueprint, generating straight-faced coverage in the mainstream media. Millions of Americans read the stories, uncritically, and conclude that the president is watching their backs -- that not everyone in Washington is a free-spending scoundrel. In Act 2, media and congressional skepticism build. Act 3 of the charade takes place when Congress rises up in opposition to the cuts, acting out of protectiveness (over these "critically important" federal programs) or territoriality (by asserting the "power of the purse strings").

That's all, folks. Show over. Bring the curtain down. Come back next year for a replay.

This all unfolds just as the president knew it would before Act 1 began. But that's OK. The president henceforth can claim that he tried to eliminate wasteful spending, even though, in the case of Obama and Bush, he is blowing the lid off all fiscal restraint. Presidents in this way can feign frugality, and show solidarity with the beleaguered taxpayer, all the while knowing that these cuts don't have a snowball's chance of actually occurring.

Many of the proposed cuts merely get handed down from president to president, like chipped pieces of White House china. The Wall Street Journal's coverage at least noted that many of Obama's proposed cuts came from a predecessor's list. "White House officials acknowledged the similarity between Mr. Obama's 121 program cuts and consolidations and $17 billion savings and Mr. Bush's 151 programs and $18 billion savings proposed for 2009," reported the Journal. "About 40% of the programs Mr. Obama has targeted for elimination or consolidation come directly off a similar list proposed by Mr. Bush over the past two budget seasons on Capitol Hill. Congress largely ignored those proposed cuts."

Much as Congress will largely ignore these proposals, in pursuit of parochial ends. One of Obama's cuts, for instance, would eliminate a way-over-budget, way-behind-schedule effort to build not 1 or 2 or 3 new presidential helicopters, but 28 of them, at an estimated cost of $13 billion. But New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey, in whose district the program means jobs, "vowed to force the White House to accept delivery" of the helicopters, reports The Washington Post. "The helicopter program, which cost $835 million this year, supports 800 jobs in Hinchey's district." "I do think there's a good chance we can save it," said Hinchey.

And so it goes, all down the line. Almost every program Obama targeted has a small but vocal constituency, and powerful congressional patrons, who will fight like Comanches to keep it alive. Some do it because they sincerely believe these programs serve the national interest, but most do it because it serves their self-interest, as in Hinchey's case, and because they can.

It's a power thing, according to David Williams, Vice President for Policy at Citizens Against Government Waste, who by now knows the ritual by heart. “This is the same dance that is done every year with the President and Congress; the President proposes budget cuts and Congress ignores them," says Williams. "This has less to with political affiliation and more to do with Congress refusing to relinquish any control of spending. Even with both chambers and the executive branch run by the same party, spending money in Washington D.C. is still the ultimate expression of power. And Congress will not give up that power willingly. The bottom line is: that the less money Congress has to spend, the less power it has.”

And that's not a dynamic that even Super President, Barack Obama, can change.

The "Mystery of the Post-Mortem Pollster" -- see my April 28 post -- was solved while I was out of town for a few days of R & R.

The Gazette has revealed that the post-election poll was commissioned by local political consultant Sarah Jack, who ran the Jobs Now campaign, as an after-action analysis of what went wrong. And what she learned was that voters made an informed decision on 1A -- something that seemed evident to this layperson based on the selectivity evident in the April 7 results. "The voters were thoughtful," Jack told The Gazette. "They understood it, and they read it, and they got it - and they just didn't support it."

My worry -- that backers of 1A might be laying the groundwork for a second run at the $51 million tax extension later this year -- was unfounded, apparently. "Jack said the Jobs Now organization is not pursuing another tax measure," according to the Gazette.

Fair enough. There turns out to be a reasonable explanation for an activity that seemed open to a more ominous interpretation. I regret it if my raising of red flags and use of bombast ruffled feathers in the pro-1A camp. But rumors continue to swirl about whether the cash-strapped city will leave the more than $3 million in annual revenues on the table, or make another run at the money this fall. We'll just have to wait and see about that.

The Gazette's reporter also conducted his own port-mortem, based on the final campaign disclosure reports:

"The reports show Jobs Now strengthened its position as the biggest money raiser in the campaign. But the reports show big money doesn't always win in politics, a Gazette review found. Jobs Now reported spending $172,742.69 through the campaign, which translates to $6.56 for every vote in favor of Question 1A. An opposing group called Citizens for Cost-Effective Government spent $4,930.93, or 11 cents per vote."

I strongly agree with Barry Noreen's Wednesday column, which called on City Hall to conduct any renegotiation of the USOC headquarters "deal" in a more open, public-friendly fashion than the first "deal" was conducted. Many of the problems with the "old deal" stem in part from the hushed and hurried way it was approved.

Here's how Barry put it:

"A looming question now is whether the new deal will be consummated in a back room, as the first ill-fated USOC deal was, or whether City Hall will bring a doubting community in on the discussion.

About 13 months ago, city officials unveiled a done deal, a $53 million package already tied up with a pretty bow. They talked about it as if it were a tremendous accomplishment, a gift, even.

There was no way to talk about it without being guilty of being a Monday morning quarterback, because when the game is already over, all one can do is look back.

Now that the old deal has gone awry, some of us must be excused for wanting to see the new deal before it's final."

The original arrangement, which has now fallen apart (leading to a lawsuit, acrimony and more backroom intrigue than seems healthy), was negotiated in secret, sprung on the public on a Friday and rubber-stamped by City Council the following Monday. The "public process" consisted of City Council members, joined by those who had negotiated the deal, patting themselves on the back for "saving" the USOC. There was virtually no public examination of, or debate about, the agreement's fine print or potentially hidden costs, some of which -- like whether the developer enjoys a property tax waiver -- are only belatedly coming to light. And a little more due diligence, and public debate, might have raised red flags about whether the city had selected the best possible partner in Ray Marshall and LandCo.

A more open and public process, and better public buy-in, is especially important if the "new deal" is going to require an even greater commitment of taxpayer dollars than the original -- something that everyone already suspects will be the case. But that's the problem when so much of the process is conducted behind closed doors, leaving the public in the dark. Secrecy breeds suspicion. The city's negotiators may be making promises and commitments that the public won't support when the details become public. Citizens will be much more alert now than they were back in March of 2008 about the fine print and devilish details. And fear of public rejection -- of public meddling in their carefully- crafted compromise -- may push the mayor and council members to shortcut the public process again, creating even more public relations problems for the city and USOC.

It's a vicious circle, in other words, that City Hall hopefully won't repeat, now that it has an opportunity for a re-do. So far, as Barry point out, it seems they're following the same playbook they did the first time around. Reasonable people recognize that some level of secrecy is required in certain negotiations. But the sooner the process is opened to the public, and the sooner the details are made known and aired out, the better the chances are that public buy-in will occur.

Let's hope City Hall understands that the second time around.

I admire and applaud the last-ditch effort by some area officials (joined by former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, who currently has his eye on the governor's job) to get Gov. Bill Ritter to veto HB -1317, a bill aimed at throwing up yet another hurdle to the possible future expansion of Fort Carson's Piñon Canyon training area. The arguments they make in favor of killing the bill -- as presented in Wednesday's Gazette -- are compelling. They echo many I made in this space not long ago.

But I would be amazed if Ritter showed the political fortitude and foresight required to veto the bill.

Though he was elected to represent the entire state, and though the entire state has an abiding interest in maintaining a strong partnership with the U.S. military, Ritter cares little about, and owes even less to, the Republican stronghold of El Paso County (which also happens to be where most of the state's military activity is centered). Vetoing the bill would not only draw fire from the virulently anti-Army drum-beaters in the ranching communities of Southern Colorado, and from statehouse Democrats who have demagogued the issue to death, but from the editorial page of The Pueblo Chieftain, which has egged-on the anti-Piñon Canyon crowd, if only because anything that benefits Colorado Springs must be opposed.

Ritter draws a lot of votes from Pueblo. Therefore, he's loath to get crosswise with The Chieftain. And few Democrats in leadership positions (not the Salazar brothers, not Mark Udall, and certainly not anyone under the golden dome) have shown a willingness to counter the knee-jerk opposition to expansion coming from certain quarters. Plus, let's face it, a stubborn skepticism about the Army's plans undoubtedly plays well with two key Democrat Party constituencies, including environmentalists, who oppose real-world military training activities that interfere with butterflies and bunnies, and peaceniks, whose disdain for the military seems encoded in the party's DNA.

Cold, hard political calculus argues against Ritter vetoing the bill. That's why it's highly unlikely he'll do it. But it's good to lay down a marker on the issue now, and put the governor on the spot, since he's up for re-election in less than 2 years. McInnis is obviously gambling that Ritter's perceived indifference to Fort Carson's future, and to maintaining good relations with the military, could be a winning issue for him in 2010, at least here in El Paso County. And with Ritter's polling numbers suggesting vulnerability, perhaps he's on to something.

The question is how this issue translates, politically-speaking, beyond Southeastern Colorado, and whether McInnis can use it to paint Ritter as anti-military, and as indifferent to the economic benefits military bases bring to Colorado. But this has to at least give Ritter pause, before be blithely signs this terribly short-sighted piece of legislation.

Seth Richardson, writing on The Gazette's opinion blog, which is appropriately called The Broadside, unleashed a salvo yesterday at a major bugaboo of mine -- NIMBYs -- asking how it is, in a city where property rights are supposedly respected, that self-styled neighborhood groups have assumed the power to veto projects that don't conform with their subjective aesthetic tastes? The news hook for Richardson's post was Bill Vogrin's most recent Side Streets column, which read like something out of Boulder rather than Colorado Springs.

Here's the situation in brief. Dave Munger, president of the Council of Neighbors & Organizations, is demanding that City Council recognize another small neighborhood group, the newly-formed Rawles Open Space Neighborhood Association, as a legitimate entity for the purposes of influencing land use decisions. The Rawles group wants to block the construction of homes it says are out of character with the neighborhood. A representative of the would-be builder argued that the new group was a "fabrication," which shouldn't have a say in the decision, an assertion that raised the ire of Vice Mayor Larry Small, who insists that he's a stalwart protector of property rights -- at least until a group steps forward seeking to trample the property rights of an individual. I guess it's a question of math for Small. Groups trump individuals in such disputes because they deliver more votes. The principle involved apparently has little to do with it.

I agree with Small that any group deserves council recognition. Where we seem to differ is on the question of whether the collective ought to prevail over the individual, simply by dint of numbers, where property rights (or any other rights) are concerned. I don't care how big the group is. I don't care how long it's been around. I don't care how many votes it can deliver. I don't care whether what's being proposed is out of character with said neighborhood. No group should have the power to deny an individual his or her rights -- property rights, foremost among them. That's what the nation's founders fearfully referred to as the "tyranny of the majority." But that's the power such groups assume when we begin treating them like legitimate "stakeholders," who should have a say in the system of collectivized property rights called "the planning process," as opposed to what they really are, which is interlopers and aggressors.

But Richardson does a good job of making the salient points:

"Munger’s desire to control other people’s property is particularly pernicious because he argued that every tiny group of existing homeowners, no matter how small, should be given veto power over the development plans of their neighbors for no better reason than their particular aesthetic sensibilities. And Vice Mayor Larry Small, who mouthed platitudes about respecting private property rights while simultaneously destroying Hembre’s property rights, is a hypocrite of the highest order. Small said, “I am very sensitive to the right of people to use their property. This is about compatibility. They can still develop their property, just in a more compatible way.” But the essential question is why should Vice Mayor Small, or anyone else, have the power to determine what’s architecturally “compatible?” Architecture is art, and has been for thousands of years, and art is expression, and freedom of expression is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. How dare Small or Munger or anyone else presume to infringe on that right and substitute their tastes for those of the landowner?

“Neighborhoods are defined by their character, their inhabitants,” said Small, which while true, is wrongfully used as an excuse to infringe on architectural expression. But the historical facts of life are that neighborhoods, like cities, evolve and change over time as the needs of the occupants change and it’s an injustice and an act of tyranny for the “character” of a neighborhood to subsume the right of a property owner to use and enjoy his property for no better reason than to pander to the aesthetic desires of his neighbors . .

. . .When did the selfish aesthetic desires of one’s neighbors take on legal significance? How did the subjective aesthetic judgments of a city council member come to enslave the free expression that is the design of one’s home? How did the desires of one’s neighbors for sameness and stultification come to be raised above the rights of the individual? How did we allow this to happen, and why do we permit it to continue?

Answering Richardson's rhetorical questions can't be done in a blog, or even a book. And it would take someone with a far greater grasp of the history of collectivized and conditional property rights in American than I have. But it's important that someone keeps asking, and demanding answers to such questions, lest Americans forget that all the rights they claim and enjoy won't mean diddly once they become conditioned on the approval of the collective.

Many factors are dragging down the "old media," from falling ad revenues to the free content culture of the Internet. But unions are an often-overlooked part of the equation, as I've noted here before. The unions that are sucking the productivity and profitability out of The Boston Globe are making last-minute concessions in a bid to forestall the death of another great American newspaper, reports today's Washington Post. But as with so many other heavily-unionized American industries that have been going the way of the Dodo, it's almost certainly too little, too late.

Note in the story that one of the sticking points in the negotiations was a "lifetime job guarantee" enjoyed by some company employees -- a level of job security that only members of the federal bench and members of Congress can rival. "Nearly 470 employees across six unions have the guarantees, including about 190 Newspaper Guild members," reports the Post. "Most got the promises in a contract ratified in 1994, shortly after the Times Co. bought the Globe for $1.1 billion, in exchange for other concessions at the time. Workers can still be fired for cause, but the newspaper says the guarantees reduce its ability to pare its operational structure."

Let's not forget, when writing the obituary for the American newspaper industry, the significant role that unions played in its demise. Other factors matter, of course. And even non-union papers are struggling and failing, it's true. But it also seems evident that the more heavily-unionized the paper, the faster it is sinking. Yet the union connection rarely is mentioned when the post mortems are done.

Just when you think the GOP is destined to wander the political wilderness for 40 years, as penance for having lost its moral and ideological compass, a glimmer of hope emerges that the party might still regain its bearings. Although it's been in the public domain for almost a week, I just stumbled upon this incisive and important op-ed by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, in which he calls on his party to distance itself from the creeping Chamber of Commerce socialism on the march in Washington and elsewhere.

Although they've long been caricatured by their enemies as the tools of big business, Republicans actually won elections in the 70s, 80s and 90s by preaching the gospel of political and economic liberty, according to DeMint. And the party won't regain public support, or its soul, until its leaders make a clean break from the business and political elites behind the corporatist convergence currently taking place.

Writes DeMint:

"For decades, the Republican Party has been portrayed by liberals (and the media) as a political country club - interested only in serving the interests of oligarchic corporate elites, insensitive to the needs of "real" Americans in the bottom 95 percent.

And for decades, Republicans consistently won elections - because the caricature was false. From President Richard Nixon's silent majority through President Ronald Reagan's realignment and the Contract With America, Republicans were not a party of economic elites as much as they were a party of economic freedom. They represented a clear, philosophical contrast to the watered-down socialism of the Democrats. Even when Republicans fell short on their promises of limited government, Americans believed the promises to be sincere nonetheless.

I doubt many Americans believe the promises anymore.

For the past eight years, the Republican experiment in big government hollowed out our core identity. In battles over immigration, spending, education and other "compassionate conservative" priorities, small-government conservatives were attacked by leading Republicans for choosing principle over poll-tested politics. It was in these battles that the long-alleged marriage between the Republican Party and corporate America was finally consummated . . . .

. . . . The road back to Republican success is not to reinforce our weakened coalition of corporate interests, but to drop it altogether. Republicans shouldn't be the party of business any more than they should be the party of labor - we're supposed to be the party of freedom. We should get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. We should not care who wins in fair fights between Microsoft and Apple, between CitiGroup and community banks, or between Home Depot and mom-and-pop hardware stores. All we should demand is a fair fight.

If Goliath beats David, so be it - just so long as he does it without corporate welfare.

Similarly, we should not tip the legal scales for either side in negotiations between Ford and the United Auto Workers. Instead, both sides should simply know that if their contract leads to competitive disadvantage, layoffs or bankruptcy, there will be no federal bailouts there to reward their mistakes.

It is none of the government's business - let alone the Republican Party's - whether banks make or deny risky loans, but only that we ensure lenders and borrowers bear the consequences of their own decisions.

When free markets are allowed to work by punishing failure and rewarding success, everyone benefits. The results are higher quality, lowered cost and innovative breakthroughs. But in a system of corporate welfare, those who suffer most are Americans who pay higher taxes funneled to well-connected companies.

A party of freedom is not a party of any one competitor, but a party of competition itself - what you might call the true "spirit of enterprise."

Republicans will succeed again when we realize our true allegiance is not to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but to free markets, free people and freedom itself.

Whether DeMint's Declaration of Independence from creeping corporatism will be heard by fellow Republicans -- and heeded by leaders in the business community as well -- is unknown. The problem, from the standpoint of the "practical" politician, is that this is where most of their campaign funds come from. But if the Republican Party is going to successfully reinvent itself, and wants to offer a real alternative to the party now in power, DeMint seems to be pointing it in the right direction. The GOP won't regain lost ground by offering socialism lite, or statism lite (if you take umbrage at my use of the "S" word), but by redefining itself as the party that champions economic, political and personal freedom -- even when that puts it on a collision course with the corporate welfare-chasers at the country club.

It's official. There's a new governing body with taxing and regulating authority along the Fountain Creek watershed between Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Gov. Bill Ritter signed a bill yesterday creating the Fountain Creek Watershed, Flood Control and Greenway District. It's being hailed, at birth, as the herald of a new era of cooperation and comity between the famously feuding cities -- as something that will turn the Fountain into an "amenity" both cities can share pride in.

The best laid plans of mice and men.

Here's what the new district can do, and spend, according to today's Pueblo Chieftain:

"The 60-page measure would establish a nine-member board that would oversee the flood plain from Fountain to Pueblo.

Under it, four district boundaries would be created with varying degrees of authority. While the full boundary of the district would include all of Pueblo and El Paso counties, any fees imposed by it would apply only to a smaller area encompassing the watershed.

The panel also would have some land-use authority, but only on a small tract right along the river.

Under the bill, the district would have the ability to impose fees, and place before voters in both counties a new tax to help pay for improvements. It is, however, limited to asking voters for no more than 5 mills, which could raise about $30 million a year.

The district also is to get about $50 million from a Southern Delivery System mitigation fund, which is to be used to get a matching federal grant that could bring in another $150 million."

If the power of governing bodies is measured at least in part by their bankrolls, this one is beginning with a bang, with $200 million in the pipeline -- so to speak -- and the ability to levy up to $30 million more a year. Its regulatory clout seems modest enough, according to this description. But for people who own land in that "small tract right along the river" -- which may be the most valuable tract they own -- having this new entity looming over them might in time become a major headache, and a significant property rights threat, making them nostalgic for the days before the district was formed.

Unmentioned in the story is whether the new district will have any legal or regulatory power over the waters flowing through it -- which would effectively give it regulatory power over every drop of water the city of Colorado Springs releases into the Fountain. What it will have is a bully-pulpit on which to stand, and brow-beat El Paso County and Colorado Springs, any time that a stormwater event or sewage spill occurs (a bully pulpit paid for, in part, by Colorado Springs ratepayers). And these will occur, in spite of whatever precautions we take or infrastructure improvements we make. Nothing in the story indicates whether the new district will have the ability to sue the city of Colorado Springs or El Paso County for actions it deems harmful to Fountain Creek. Just imagine the sorts of wag-the-dog situations we'll see if that comes to pass.

All new government entities are created with noble intentions and modest missions. But the nature of all governments, even ones initially limited in scope, is to grow, increase in power, demand more resources and, in time, become a tool of coercion, higher taxation and oppression. That means that, in time, the FCWFCGD (it really needs a shorter acronym) could become a battle zone rather than a buffer zone; a curse rather than a blessing to land owners along the creek; and yet another bone of contention between the cities -- defeating the purpose for which it was conceived.

Cynical thoughts, pouring cold water on what should be a happy occasion? Perhaps. But there is no "Law of Unintended Consequences" -- only the law of unanticipated ones. And anyone who spends any time watching governments might worry that the seeds of such a scenario were planted yesterday. Whether they will bear bitter fruit, or just sweet-smelling flowers, only time will tell.