July 2009

The second USOC "deal" is unfolding much like the first did. Let's hope it's not an exact repeat.

Remember March 2008? It feels like deja vu, all over again. There were the weeks of closed-door negotiations, in which representatives of the city made promises to a private organization that had to be backed up by public money. Then -- before most of the people of Colorado Springs even knew what those devilish details are --the USOC's board gets its say on the arrangement, which means City Council will be on the spot to approve the agreement in total or risk the whole second deal falling apart (which seems absolutely backward to me, since I think approval should first be sought from the people paying the bills, the citizens of Colorado Springs, before any offer is made to the USOC).

It will be interesting to see how the critical next act unfolds, and whether this, too, follows the original script. The first USOC deal was approved with no meaningful public process. It was rolled out on a Friday afternoon and approved by council the very next Monday, accompanied by the sounds of back-slapping. The only people who gave public input on the merits of the deal were the people who had a hand in putting it together. Nary a word of dissent was heard, nor a hard question asked, before the rubber stamp came thundering down.

The haste may have been the result of sheer exuberance. Or it might have been by design. Politicians have a tendency to want to ram certain things through, before the people can summon second thoughts or the naysayers can throw sand in the bearings. Thus explains the mad rush in Washington to overhaul the U.S. health system before Barack Obama's halo falls off. And this (in my opinion) explains the short-cutting of the public process in the first USOC deal.

Would a little more public process and a little more skepticism have averted the disaster that unfolded? It's hard to say. But I hope the city won't attempt a replay.

This "deal" is going to be more heavily scrutinized than the first one was, deservedly, because the first one became an embarrassing disaster. And things are dramatically different than they were in March of 2008. The economy has tanked. Credit is tight. People who are anxious and struggling aren't in a generous mood. Lamentations over the city's money problems are reaching another crescendo (raising questions about how a city this broke can spare millions of dollars for the USOC). Rumors of looming tax increases abound. The mayor's ethics problems linger.

Naturally, the people will be more careful about reading the fine print this time around. Once burned, twice shy, as they say.

The Gazette several days ago reported that Colorado Springs Utilities and Pueblo County have quietly dropped a lawsuit, which had CSU challenging the county's use of so-called 1041 regs to hold the Southern Delivery System hostage, in order to squeeze "concessions" from "that city" up north. Missing from the story was what this little legal standoff -- this stupid game of chicken, precipitated by Springs-bashers in the Steel City and a former Colorado attorney general named Ken Salazar - cost CSU ratepayers and Pueblo County taxpayers. Those numbers were reported today by The Pueblo Chieftain -- which I frequently turn to for news of importance to Colorado Springs.

The suit cost CSU and Pueblo County a combined $860,000, reports the Chieftain; $420,000 for CSU and $440,00 for Pueblo County. That the folks in Pueblo County spent $40,000 more than we did offers one small consolation, since they precipitated a lawsuit that could easily have been avoided had cooler heads prevailed. Cooler heads didn't prevail, however, because of instigators who saw some political advantage in playing up the threat to Pueblo from SDS, and in nursing tensions between the two cities.

One instigator, if you track this back far enough and review your newspaper clips, is Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who made a special trip down to The Steel City back when he was Colorado's attorney general -- back when this conflict could have been avoided -- to encourage Pueblo County to use its 1041 regs to gum-up our water project. Another instigator was/is Pueblo Chieftain publisher Bob Rawlings, who has done everything in his power to fuel the conflict and obstruct SDS, using his editorial page and personal clout in the city.

In a just world, we would be able to bill the instigators to cover these costs. I think CSU should invoice Salazar and Rawlings, requesting renumeration. But instead, the rest of us will have to foot the bill for the water wars that a handful of politicos start and perpetuate, by stoking and then pandering to public passions. This $860,000 is just the tip of the iceberg.

First I checked the paper newspaper. Twice. Then I looked at the on-line version of The Gazette. Amazingly, not a word was written about the anti-ObamaCare rally in Acacia Park Wednesday.

I'm fairly certain it happened. I was there. More than a thousand other citizens (and newspaper readers) were there, too, to voice legitimate concerns about the Democrat plan to overhaul the American health care system. A few television news trucks showed, so I know it must have gotten some play in the electronic media. But the city's daily -- a daily struggling for readership, relevance, profitability and survival -- couldn't be bothered to send a reporter or photographer six or seven blocks to get the story.

When rally attendees opened this morning's paper, or logged on to Gazette.com, looking for some coverage of an event and issue they care about, they found nothing, a big zero. Extensive front page coverage was given to the nice things some granola-cruncher magazine said about the Springs. But a protest in the heart of the city didn't happen, as far as the Gazette's news side is concerned.

The Gazette's coverage of the first tea party at Acacia Park was snide and condescending, but at least the paper showed up. But this is hard to interpret as anything other than a snub -- as a signal that The Gazette's news side just doesn't think tea party-type people have anything relevant to say, or are worth covering. That's a little odd, not to mention self-defeating, because there are a lot of tea party-type people in this town, even if they don't show up at rallies, many of whom subscribe to a newspaper that just determined that their views are non-news.

These people may continue to read The Gazette, if only because the paper's libertarian editorial voice speaks to the issues they care about. But if enough of them begin to feel disrespected and disregarded by the news side of The Gazette, and if enough of these non-entities become non-readers, this will only hasten the speed with which the city's "old media" flagship is sinking.

Mike Holler, the local author of The Constitution Made Easy -- a book that performs an invaluable public service by translating the sometimes archaic language of that key document into contemporary prose -- will be a guest on the Mike Rosen show tomorrow, July 31, from 10 to 11 a.m. Rosen's show is broadcast on KOA, AM 850.

Those with questions for Holler should use the call-in line: 303-713-8585

Mike is a great guy who has written a wonderful book, as people will learn if they listen in tomorrow.

The city’s “independent” ethics inquiry into the mayor’s past business dealings is plodding along in virtual silence and secrecy, even as city insiders (including the mayor) -- also operating in virtual secrecy -- scramble around, behind the scenes, negotiating over how much more money taxpayers might have to cough up to salvage the USOC headquarters deal.

There seems to be no hurry on the one hand, and a big hurry on the other. But wouldn’t it be nice for the public to understand what went wrong with the first USOC “deal” before the city tries to sell us on the merits of a second one?

All this got me thinking back to the last major ethics flap involving a member of City Council, and how it was handled, which sent me digging through the Gazette archives just to confirm that my memory isn't playing tricks on me. What a contrast the two situations present.

Many may recall, it involved allegations that Councilman Tom Gallagher had a conflict of interest stemming from some work he did for a company owned by the wife of developer Mark Morley, who was at the time ruffling council feathers by pushing an alternative to the Southern Delivery System. Though he strongly denied any conflict existed, Gallagher’s council colleagues were foaming at the mouth over the link, demanding, frequently in ad hominum tones, that he recuse himself from any SDS-related votes and deliberations. It was the case that prompted a change of city ethics policies in 2007, which included the creation of the “independent” ethics commission operating today (at such a leisurely pace).

Reviewing the Gallagher case, one is struck by the difference of attitude, tone and standards of justice applied then and now. Gallagher must have felt like he was being pursued by head-hunters – and it certainly appears that way in retrospect, given the personal attacks and condemnations he endured in public meetings and in the press.

Gallagher seemed convicted by his colleagues even before City Attorney Pat Kelly (hardly a disinterested party, given the cliquishness inside City Hall) conducted her own investigation. He was publicly lambasted by now Vice-Mayor Larry Small, and told his guilt or innocence really didn’t matter, because he had no “credibility” anyway. Council colleagues at one point threatened to hire a private investigator to dig dirt on Gallagher – they backed off after he said he welcomed the probe, but insisted that all of the proceeding be open to the public.

The rumor mill swirled, stirred by some of Gallagher’s colleagues (whom I would name if I had notes or recordings to back up my memory), as his detractors tried to explain how the most working class member of this council might benefit financially if a Morley plan went forward. I was told on several occasions -- off the record of course, and in whispers -- about Gallagher’s supposedly flawed character and ill-repute. I was told this by some of the same folks who today won’t say a word about the Rivera case, and insist that they would prefer not to prejudge the situation. The “process” must be followed, they now insist.

And you might remember this as well: Mayor Rivera led the charge against Gallagher, detailing the case for conflict of interest in a lengthy memo (secret until Gallagher made it public) which read more like a verdict of guilt than an indictment. The mayor insisted that it was nothing personal with Gallagher; Rivera just felt the city’s reputation for integrity was at stake. And he, the mayor, was going to clean up the city. Only a few members of council weren’t willing to rush to judgment on the issue. Most had already made up their minds about Gallagher’s alleged conflict and low character.

It was character assassination, in short; politically-motivated character assassination, for reasons I’ll explain in a moment. Conviction came first, in the public and the press; due process (such as it was) followed, only after one member of council was ostracized and vilified. Gallagher survived politically, because the general public apparently just didn’t see the web of conspiracy some of his colleagues were weaving. There was a kangaroo court aspect to the episode that may have offended the public’s basic sense of fairness.

Now fast forward to the present. Contrast then and now. What a difference one sees, though this is same City Council we had back then, minus Richard Skorman and Margaret Radford. Where our City Council back then was forceful (too forceful) in highlighting Gallagher’s alleged misconduct, and in wanting to get to the bottom of things, this Council seems downright disinterested in learning whether Mayor Rivera was doing favors for a local developer he managed money for. They won't even ask him to step away from current negotiations involving the USOC; at least until these allegations are cleared up. And not a word has been heard from council about the fact that the mayor was voting on the construction of a new city parking garage across the street from Ray Marshall's Tejon Street building, even while managing money for Marshall -- something pointed out by this website several weeks ago.

What explains these contrasting approaches? Politics, broadly speaking. And City Council group dynamics.

Gallagher became a tempting target because he was rocking the boat (as he continues to rock the boat) on the Southern Delivery System. His questions and criticisms were infuriating to a number of colleagues (especially Rivera and Radford) who thought they had everything dialed-in on running the pipe to Pueblo and didn’t want anyone – especially a colleague -- messing with the plan. Gallagher was an odd man out, for raising hell on SDS, which made it open season when a whiff of ethics questions surfaced. His colleague-accusers failed to destroy him. But they gave it their best shot. And it was no-holds barred.

The Mayor is getting dramatically different treatment, and afforded every benefit of the doubt, because he is part of the majority clique on this consensus-craving council, where breaking too far from the pack is frowned upon. He’s also an architect of the USOC deal, which this council had a lot invested in, politically speaking, before it imploded. To question Rivera’s involvement in that deal is to question the soundness and wisdom of what council hurriedly signed off on – something a majority on council isn't about to do when members are scrambling to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Gallagher was an outsider, out of step with many of his colleagues. Rivera is the consummate insider. Thus explains the two standards of justice that apply. Gallagher received no benefit of the doubt; Rivera gets every benefit of the doubt, and then some (Perry Mason will have to force a confession from the mayor before his council colleagues will concede even the appearance of impropriety).

The old approach was wrong (I hope even those who led the charge against Gallagher will concede) and unjust. I’m not arguing that similar tactics should be used against the mayor now. But the city’s new ethics regime, though an improvement over the Wild West shooting gallery endured by Gallagher, also seems to have major flaws, which need to be reviewed and addressed after the Rivera probe runs its course. Members of City Council shouldn't have a double standard when it comes to ferreting out the facts, depending on the popularity and collegiality of the accused.

Harvard's Henry Louis Gates acted like a jerk during the now-famous police call to his Cambridge home. Instead of understanding that the cop was just doing his job, by responding to a false alarm, and thanking the officer for going to the unnecessary trouble -- instead of acting as most people would in a similar situation -- the raving professor turned the encounter into an ugly, racially-charged confrontation that wouldn't have happened if he'd just kept his cool. President Barack Obama made matters worse by weighing in on the situation without the use of his ubiquitous TelePrompTer.

But acting like an ingrate and a jerk, and lipping off to a cop, and losing one's cool, is not grounds for arrest: a point made in today's Colorado Springs Gazette editorial. Where the cop erred, in my opinion, was in not walking away once it was established that Gates wasn't an intruder. That would have meant quietly suffering verbal abuse from an ungrateful citizen (something cops probably do too much of). It would have meant swallowing his pride. But there's no law (at least no constitutional law) against being ungrateful or verbally combative. And where the cop escalated the situation beyond where it needed to go was when he reached for his handcuffs after Gates refused to calm down.

Writes the Gazette:

"Police arrested Gates for disorderly conduct because he mouthed off and insulted them. Professor Gates probably shouldn’t have run his mouth. It wasn’t polite. It wasn’t scholarly. It wasn’t sophisticated. It wasn’t behavior that moves our country in the direction of more racial equality. But Professor Gates chose to indulge an emotional tantrum while standing on his own property. He had a right to throw a fit. When he called police names and accused them of misconduct, they should have immediately taken a clue and determined one thing: “We’re not welcome here, on this man’s property, which is not a crime scene.” Then they should have left. End of story.

Gates used hurtful words, and police used force. Words don’t harm the way sticks and stones and handcuffs do. On his own property, a man is free to use almost any words he pleases."

At a time when many Americans are rallying to the defense of the cop (an honorable man and good officer, from what we know, who was suddenly plunged into this racially-charged maelstrom), or using this as on opportunity to take shots at Barack Obama, it's good to see a few observers (like the G) taking the contrarian view, which says that civil liberties must be respected even if it requires law officers to swallow their pride.

The Washington Post reports that House Democrats went back to school Monday afternoon, sitting still, without talking or interrupting, while congressional staff led a tutorial on what's in the 1,000-page overhaul of the American health care system that's been floating around the chamber for weeks. This way, when they're home for August recess, members can talk intelligently about the bill -- almost as if they understand it. Explains the Post:

"The rough draft of the bill ("America's Health Choices Act") runs more than 1,000 pages, with amendments yet to come. Last week the Democrats decided that they needed to know more about the legislation before they go back to their constituents for the August recess. Hence the teach-in, an unusual basement seminar that lasted five hours with one break for procedural votes on the House floor."

But shouldn't members of the majority party have undergone this tutorial before, rather than after, the bill was written and introduced? And what does this say about the cluelessness (and sheer recklessness) of the people ostensibly in charge; and about the power wielded by unelected staff (and the lobbyists they're chummy with), who draw-up legislation first and educate their bosses about the details later, weeks after the bill is introduced?

More from the Post:

"Some members had a printout of the entire bill. Others used a 34-page cheat sheet . . . . To make matters somewhat easier for members, the packet of information handed out at the door included a glossary of health-care terms, including:

Actuarial

Equivalent

Adverse Selection

Capitation Comparative

Effectiveness

Cost Shifting

Duel Eligibles"

What a scary story. What an alarming situation. The county is being run by a gang of morons -- or their assistants. Congress is about to attempt an overhaul of the American health care system -- based on a "cheat sheet."

Time to head for the lifeboats.

Colorado Springs Independent publisher John Weiss this week writes about the dangers of “groupthink” and “circular logic” when it comes to discerning what voters really believe and want. It’s the opening salvo in his effort to put a measure on the November ballot that would “tweak” our city TABOR by eliminating everything but the right to vote on tax increases. But Weiss himself may have fallen victim to the syndrome.

To Weiss’s credit, he at least went to the trouble and expense of commissioning a poll and engaging in a little public outreach before plunging ahead with the latest run at TABOR (in the interest of full disclosure, he briefed me on what he had in mind many months ago, then promptly disregarded what I told him). But I wonder whether he isn’t the victim of a little groupthink, too, and willfully misreading what his poll seems to say on the topic of TABOR.

Wishful poll-reading

The poll showed that “TABOR had a rating of 58 percent favorable to 34 percent unfavorable among likely voters,” Weiss writes, before walking off a cliff with the following assertion:

“Voters only support the first part of TABOR, which mandates that all sales or property tax increases must be approved by voters. By an overwhelming margin — 59 percent for, 30 percent against — voters would support eliminating all of TABOR's other provisions, including tax and revenue caps as well as the damaging ratchet-down formulas.”

How Weiss reached that conclusion, based on the polling questions asked, is a mystery, but it raises the very real possibility that he’s reading what he wants to see into the survey. But that isn’t surprising. Weiss undertook the poll not as a disinterested party, but knowing in advance that he wanted to run a ballot measure this fall eliminating TABOR’s spending caps and ratchet effect. That was clear to me from our conversation.

He and other TABOR detractors probably would like to get rid of TABOR completely (to flush it all down the toilet, picking up on the image that graces the cover of his publication this week). But he knows that he dare not take it on in total. Better to pick it apart in pieces. Saw off one leg of the stool at a time and eventually it falls over. It’s TABOR’s spending limits that are most galling to the better-living-through-bigger-government crowd, anyway. Do away with those and you’re halfway to Dream City 2020.

This is what the pollster asked in regard to TABOR -- the question from which Weiss drew his conclusion that voters were eager to dump the law’s spending caps:

“Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of keeping the mandate that voters must approve all tax increases, but gutting all remaining portions of TABOR?”

Nearly 60 percent of respondents said they favored the idea: 30 percent opposed it. But the question refers to “all remaining portions of TABOR,” without explaining what those are. If you posed the question another way – “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the taxing and spending controls TABOR places on city government?” or “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the idea that government expenditures should shrink when the local economy shrinks?” – I’m guessing the results would be different.

Voters may not at this point be clear on what those “remaining portions of TABOR” are. But that will change in the course of the battle that will result from putting this on the ballot. TABOR supporters will explain to voters what they stand to lose by giving up those “remaining portions” – that the city will no longer operate under any tax or spending restraint whatsoever and that the city’s baseline budget never needs to shrink, but will always trend upward, even in hard times. And I’m betting, when voters are better informed on the details, they’ll respond quite differently than they did to the poll.

And let’s remember: more than 70 percent of those participating in the poll were under the impression that the mayor makes more than $50,000 (with nearly 20 percent believing he makes over $150,000!). Most participants aren’t familiar with most members of City Council. This suggests that their grasp of details isn’t great, to say the least. That will change in the course of any city ballot fight, in which the still-popular TABOR is the bone of contention. Once they tune in and begin focusing on details, these polling results will be worthless.

More than a “tweak”

Many in city leadership hate TABOR because it constrains the growth of government. And they – whether they are Republicans or Democrats -- believe that it’s only through government action and government growth that a city achieves greatness. They dare not tackle the voting-on-taxes provisions of TABOR, so they are going after less-well-understood provisions first, selling it to the public as the proverbial “tweak.” But their goal is the complete liberation of local government from all restraints.

I might be able to support a true TABOR “tweak,” put forward by people who really believe in the continuing value of what TABOR does. I’m not one of those who believe TABOR functions perfectly, or believe it was handed down on tablets from a burning bush. I have reservations about resorting to mechanisms to restrain government. But this seems like much more than a “tweak.” The so-called ratchet effect might present legitimate problems, and could arguably need adjustment or elimination. But taxing and spending controls remain an integral part of the protections TABOR offers against runaway local government, of the type one sees in Denver or Boulder. And I believe they are as popular with voters as the vote-on-taxes provision of TABOR, even if they’re less well understood.

A little constructive advice

I’ll tell readers what I told Weiss (whom I like) when he solicited my views on his plan. I told him that TABOR, though an imperfect mechanism for controlling government, remained popular, and that he and his City Council allies would lose at the ballot box if they bring this forward. I suggested that a modest adjustment to the TABOR spending limits might fly, and that some creative and sensible attempt to deal with the ratchet effect might have merit – but that anything more would rightly be perceived as an attempt on TABOR’s life. I told him that I don’t believe “the redundancy argument” – the claim that we don’t need a city TABOR because a state TABOR is protection enough – holds water, since the state TABOR is also under siege.

As problematic as some parts of TABOR can be, it performs an important function for which public support is still strong. I predict there will be staunch opposition if this lands on the ballot.

Terrible timing

Here’s what I should have told him but probably didn’t.

City Council should carefully think through the mix of things it slaps on the fall ballot. Local voters are discerning, as they showed in April, but the wrong combination of ballot measures might send them all toppling down together, like a line of dominos. Put an anti-TABOR item on the ballot, accompanied by a bunch of tax increases, and voters will see this, quite correctly, as a major assault on their pocketbooks, by a city that refuses to live within its means. Opposition will be vigorous. The tax increases and TABOR “tweak” could all go down together.

Current economic and political circumstances dictate caution on the part of City Council. The economy sucks. People are feeling anxious. They’re alarmed and resentful about the massive spending spree in Washington, but might take their frustrations out on local government instead, if given an opportunity. Confidence and trust in city leadership is low. The USOC debacle and the mayor’s unresolved ethics problems hang over the city like a dark cloud. A USOC rescue attempt may be met not with cheers, but with jeers, depending on the price tag for taxpayers. A city that offers millions of dollars in handouts to the USOC isn’t going to get much sympathy from voters when it comes to asking them to hike their taxes.

What council thinks is good for the city, the voters mostly rejected in the April elections, in what could be read as a vote of no confidence. The outcome in April suggests City Council is out of touch with the mood of voters; how much money and effort individuals and organizations will want to put behind another doomed ballot measure is an open question.

Council must choose

Given all this, City Council would be foolhardy to slap too much, or the wrong combination of items, on the ballot. I think council has to choose. Do they want to go for the TABOR “tweak,” or do they want to go for a modest tax hike of some sort, tied to some tangible benefit? Attempting both will likely doom both. In my opinion, they’ll have a tough time getting voter approval for either ballot measure, under the just-described circumstances. But their chances of success will improve if they make hard choices now, when determining what items to put on the ballot. By grabbing for everything, they'll likely come up with nothing.

That’s just one man’s feedback, for what it is worth.

You hear more about "states rights" these days than you have in recent years, as some governors react to events in Washington (especially the stimulus package) that seem designed to obliterate what remnants of the federalist system remain. But it’s hard to get a handle on how seriously people take this.

Texas recently caused a stir, for instance, when leaders there suggested that they might secede from the union in response to what’s taking place in Washington. Resolutions passed in other, mostly Republican-controlled states (like secession-happy South Carolina) have vaguely asserting state sovereignty, hinting at nascent rebellion. And I have written in recent years about the rise of what I call "neo-federalism" -- an emerging assertiveness on the part of states, stemming not from the hyperactivity of the Obama administration but from the paralysis that is much more the rule in Washington.

As someone who believes in the federalist system established by the founders, and who cheers almost any sign of its resurgence, I've watched these developments with hope and interest. But I've reluctantly come to believe that much of the most recent states rights talk is mere posturing and saber-rattling, done for rhetorical effect only, to advance narrowly partisan ends -- which threatens to trivialize the serious constitutional issue of how power is apportioned in the country.

Both major parties cynically evoke it when it gives them tactical advantage in the skirmish at hand, but neither takes it seriously enough to apply in a consistent or coherent way.

Yesterday's fight in the U.S. Senate over an amendment designed to expand gun rights offered a good example of what I'm talking about. So blatant was the flip-flopping and position-switching on the issue that even the New York Times picked up on it:

"The debate forced senators to wrestle with issues of states rights, sometimes in ways that seemed to clash with the general philosophies of their parties. Many Republicans, who typically favor limiting the ability of the federal government to dictate to states on social issues, voted in this case to limit the ability of states to insist on their own rules for concealed weapons carried by people from other states . . ."

. . .Critics of the amendment argued that it would undermine state and local gun-control laws, and accused Republican supporters, typically staunch defenders of states’ rights, of hypocrisy.

In their floor speeches and in the lead-up to the vote, Republicans repeatedly sought to rebut that accusation by saying that gun carriers would still have to obey state and local laws."

Typically, the Times focused on Republican hypocrisy, but Democrats are guilty of it, too, since they normally are enthusiastic supporters of expanding Washington's power and control, over virtually every corner of the country, but in this case -- in a laughably cynical fashion -- took the position that the amendment in question would trample states' rights.

The arguments for moving the nation back in the direction of its federalist origins are compelling, in my view, even if the political obstacles to doing so are daunting. And I won't abandon my hopes for a neo-federalist revival, spurred by the desire of states to chart their own destinies and escape Washington's long shadow. But that effort won't gain real traction as long as Republicans and Democrats continue to trivialize and play games with states rights, batting the issue around like a political beach ball.

The Gazette did an admirable job of covering Steve Hyde's remarks at yesterday's Food for Thought Luncheon, sponsored by the Limited Government Forum. But readers intrigued by the article might also want to check out Hyde's very informative website, HydeonHealthcare.com, where they can read his blog posts and buy the book (his books, I should say, since he authored one other dealing with prescription drugs).

Steve, for those who don't know him, is a local resident with a growing national reputation as an advocate for market-based health care reform. Nobody knows the business end of the health business better than Steve, based on 40 years of experience doing everything short of brain surgery. And of critical importance, Hyde also understands and appreciates how markets can be harnessed to lower costs, improve service and empower the health care consumer.

He's thought through many of the thorniest issues and come up with a plan that isn't pie-in-the-sky and could really work if political support can be drummed-up. Hyde's plan would seem a natural fit for Republicans in Congress, looking for an innovative, workable, market-based alternative to ObamaCare. But all the GOP seems able to muster is ObamaCare Lite.

One good suggestion Hyde made yesterday, as a means of raising Congressional awareness of the plan, is to buy two copies of "Cured" -- keeping one for yourself and sending the second off to Washington as an early Christmas gift to your favorite member of Congress. Then you might follow up by phone or e-mail, asking whether she's read it.

One thing's for sure: It's a shorter, better and more enlightening read than the thousand page health "reform" monstrosity making its way through Congress.

An alert reader sent me the following "Help Wanted" ad from the classified section of the Colorado Springs Independent, which might offer a preview of coming attractions in this fall's city ballot:

Wanted:
Campaign Coordinator

Seeking energetic, organized individual to help an all-volunteer board promote a November ballot measure to reform TABOR. Strong computer skills and previous campaign experience a must, as is the ability to work a 45-hour week with good cheer.
Start date: Mid-August
Pay: $3,000/month

Send cover letter and resume by Monday, Aug. 3, to jayson1inc@hotmail.com

Three grand a month is pretty darn good pay, as far as campaign work goes (though it doesn't say whether that's before or after taxes). For that kind of coin, and a bag of donuts, a few Republican operatives might even mail in their resumes on this one. And, indeed, anyone hoping to overhaul the city's TABOR had better be "energetic" -- very energetic -- since he or she faces an uphill slog at best, given the present economic climate and distrust of City Hall.

But I wonder if there isn't a little false advertising here.

If those who ran the ad think the overthrow of TABOR can be accomplished on a mere 45-hour work week, they obviously haven't done much campaigning. And it's doubtful that all the "good cheer" in the world will get this campaigner through the dark days and nights to come, when the enormity of the task begins to weigh on his or her shoulders. For that, he or she will need more than just $3,000 a month, but also thick skin, infinite patience, wishful thinking and strong masochistic tendencies.

Good luck, applicant. You'll need it.

P.S. With Tom Gallagher "spearheading" the effort, a smart applicant would demand $5,000 a month.

Kiss the Rampart Range Road shooting range goodbye.

A terrible mishap occurred there Saturday, when 25-year-old Otis Frieson was mistakenly shot and killed as he and a friend were stowing firearms. And because every headline-generating mishap must be met with a disproportionate regulatory response in modern America -- because we have come to believe we can legislate (and mandate our way to) immortality -- this is all that critics of the range will need to shut it down. Responsible people will be deprived of a relatively safe place to shoot simply because Frieson's companion made a horrible mistake.

What happened to Frieson was a tragedy -- the sort of accident that could happen just about anywhere firearms are handled. Yet the victim's father is turning his grief into a cause and calling for the shooting range to be shut down. "I thought this was a supervised club, and now I am finding out that this place is a garbage dump, basically," the elder Frieson told the Associated Press. "If you don't have supervision in a place like that, it is dangerous. It absolutely should be shut down."

The U.S. Forest Service undoubtedly will jump at the suggestion, since it's been clear for a while that the agency would just as soon rid itself of this headache and force shooters to go elsewhere. But whether public safety will be enhanced by a closure is doubtful. Giving shooters a centralized place to practice their skills is arguably preferable to having them picking and choosing public lands "plinking" spots at random. We could ban them from the forests completely, of course, which would please firearms-phobes and the recreational correctness crowd. Or we could ask the Forest Service to play a supervisory role at the range, which it probably lacks the resources and manpower to do.

Or, conversely, we could accept that tragedies happen, even in the most supervised of situations, hope other users of the range will learn from the mishap, prompting more caution in the future, and resist calls for a regulatory overreaction to this incident.

Many places are dangerous without "supervision," including national forests. Not a week goes by that someone isn't hurt or killed while enjoying unsupervised use of a national forest. Boaters drown, rock climbers fall, mountain bikers tumble, skiers hit trees, hikers get lost and die from exposure. It's impossible to prevent such accidents and tragedies from happening without banning these activities, and impractical to supervise everything done across vast tracts of public land, so we let them go on, with the people involved accepting the risks of participation.

Why shouldn't we apply the same principles of self-supervision at the shooting range?

We don't close rivers or lakes in national forests when boating mishaps occur. We don't call a halt to all rock climbing when a climber falls to her death. We don't close the ski resort every time a skier hits a tree (and I'm betting that far more people die each year on national forest lands leased to ski resorts than die at public lands shooting ranges). Why, then, must we shut down a shooting range simply because an accident occurs?

It's an irrational response, generated simply because firearms freak out some people in modern America.

If Frieson and his shooting companions felt at risk at this admittedly hardscrabble range, they could have turned around and gone elsewhere. That wouldn't necessarily have prevented this mishap, since firearms accidents can occur even in highly supervised situations. But the victim chose to stay and participate, judging that the risks were acceptable if proper care was taken. Proper care wasn't taken, resulting in a fatal mishap that will hopefully remind future users of the site -- if it remains open -- to follow every possible precaution.

That's where we should leave things. But that's not where things will be left, of course. Instead, we'll get a shoot-from-the-hip regulatory response, which will create the illusion of enhancing public safety by depriving responsible gun owners of the use of the range.

An editor at The Pueblo Chieftain recently decided to give the federal "Cash for Clunkers" program a test drive. He discovered, not surprisingly, that it's a lemon.

It sounds great on paper, of course. Every plan Washington draws up does. Americans driving clunkers can get a $4,500 check from Uncle Sam when they dump their old gas hog for a ride that's more environmentally correct. But when the rubber meets the road, that's where the blowout occurs, as the Chieftain's Juan Espinosa discovered.

Here's the piece:

Cash for Clunkers an enticing notion

By JUAN ESPINOSA
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

Finally, a government program for those of us who have never bought a new car - the Cash for Clunkers program. Sounds like a dream come true. Trade in our old gas-guzzling clunkers for more efficient new vehicles and the government kicks in between $3,500 and $4,500 into the deal.

The program has lots of appeal. It gets some gas hogs off the road and gives the ailing auto industry a boost. I'm pretty sure my 1989 Ford Bronco qualifies. It’s less than 25 years old. It had an estimated rating of 18 mpg, or less, when it was new and has been licensed and insured for the past year.

Under the Cash for Clunkers program, if I bought a new vehicle rated to get 10 mpg better than the Bronco, I would get the maximum incentive cash from the federal government as a trade-in toward my new ride. I paid only $1,700 for the Bronco two years ago in the first place. I’ve put another $300 or $400 in it since, so a $4,500 cash trade-in would be more than double what I have invested in the Bronco.

With $4,500 practically burning a hole in my pocket, I went surfing on the ’net for a replacement vehicle. To replace the size, and 4-wheel capabilities of my Bronco, and achieve the required mpg increase, I would have to spend about $30,000, leaving me with a balance of over $25,000 after my government bonus. I would end up with a monthly car payment of around $450 for 60 months.

But think about all the money I would save on gas, right? I drive the Bronco less than 10,000 miles a year and probably average around 14 mpg. That means I buy about 714 gallons of gas a year, which at the current rate of about $2.35 a gallon, equals $1,678 per year.

If my new vehicle got 28 mpg (probably unrealistic), it could cut my gas bill in half, to $839 a year, leaving me another $839 in savings to apply on my car payments. Another way to look at it is I would be spending about $4,500 a year to save $839 in gas. Talk about robbing Pedro to pay Pablo.

My paid-for Bronco with its 350-cubic-inch V-8 engine, 4-wheel drive, removable hardtop, surround-sound system and equally great sounding dual exhaust is starting to look better than ever. Throw in the fact that it is the kind of muscle ride with which my generation has had a lifelong love affair and it seems like a sacrilege to have it melted down to make cars that look like tennis shoes.

The truth is, I own three clunkers, a 1998 Chevy S-10 I’ve paid for at least three times, a 1995 Chevy pickup short-bed, V-6, and the Bronco. Both Chevys get better mileage than the Bronco and as a result are driven more often. Even with the additional cost of license plates, insurance and maintenance, my three paid-for clunkers cost less than one new vehicle would, even with the Cash for Clunker program.

No, thanks. I think I’ll have to pass up the Cash for Clunkers program and just drive the Bronco fewer miles. Maybe I should just retire it except for those rare visits to a remote mountain top or off-road adventure. It could last another 25 years and even increase in value as more and more clunkers become extinct.

Espinosa's experience isn't unique. Many Americans apparently are having similar frustrations with the $1 billion, just-off-the-assembly line initiative, which officially launches July 24. Reports the St. Petersburg Times:

"What appears to be a well-meaning program aimed at improving the environment and boosting the auto industry is causing more than a little confusion and frustration among those trying to use it — car dealers and customers alike.

Many who think they should qualify are finding they don't. And for those who do qualify? Good luck finding a dealer that will let you drive your new car off the lot before the program's rules are finalized.

The bill, officially named Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Act of 2009, was signed by President Barack Obama for a July 1 launch. But the details of the $1 billion program, which runs through November or until funds run out, won't be final until July 24.

Because of this, many car dealers are skittish about cutting buyers the $3,500 or $4,500 break, fearing the rules might change and they'll lose that money.

"Frankly, we're somewhat confused," said Frank Scarritt of Scarritt Lincoln-Mercury in Seminole. "Why would they come out with a program when it doesn't have all the rules in place?"

Why ask "why"?

Isn't it enough to explain that it's a federal program?

Vice Mayor Larry Small caused a stir recently when he circulated an e-mail arguing that the Gazette's libertarian editorial philosophy was "out of sync" with the thoughts and feelings of citizens in Colorado Springs -- that it's a voice in the wilderness, in effect, which holds the city back from achieving the greatness it might if only local government could grow faster.

It's a theme I heard regularly when I edited those pages, mostly from city leaders, and which I naturally took issue with, though the paper's editorial philosophy is not guided by popular opinion, or the democratic process, or by the boosterism of city elites, but by the "Freedom Philosophy" espoused by company founder R.C. Hoiles. That adherence to bedrock principle, and independence from the political pressures of the moment, makes it a rarity in the newspaper industry, where most editorial pages hew predictably to the liberal line or blow in the breeze, whipped back and forth by the political winds.

Small's e-mail resulted in two rebuttals; one from the Gazette itself and another, published today, by guest columnist and whipper-snapper Dan Cole. Copyright laws prohibit me from reproducing more than passages of Cole's piece here; read it whole at the Gazette. But I agree, not surprisingly, with its central point.

There seems a serious disconnect in Colorado Springs between a small clique of insiders who think they know what's best for the city -- which invariably (and almost-obsessively) involves the growth of government taxing and spending -- and rank-and-file residents, who show an admirable resistance to being dragged along with the program. This is a source of endless frustration to the insiders, Small included, who lash out at The Resistance and its most obvious representatives (including the Gazette) by branding them -- by branding us -- as "enemies" or "destroyers" of the city and adversaries of progress, at least as they define it.

The divide between leaders and residents seems to come down to this. The latter faction, unlike the former, isn't looking first to local government as the answer to all problems. The latter faction, unlike the former, doesn't confuse their city with their city government. The latter faction, unlike the former, thinks we're going alright in Colorado Springs, and can probably get along just fine, without a massive and expensive and overweening city government running everything. The latter faction, unlike the former, doesn't view the rate of local taxation as a measure of civic and personal virtue. The latter faction, unlike the former, is happy with Colorado Springs as it is, more or less, and isn't anxious to turn it into Austin or Portland or Boulder -- or Detroit or Cleveland . . . . or any number of lousy, government-centric cities they fled to come here.

Writes Cole:

"The vast majority of people [in the Springs] don’t want much from city government, so they don’t send their vice mayor e-mails. They don’t contribute money to political campaigns, work as city employees, sit through government meetings, or do anything else that would make Larry Small aware of their existence.

Yet these are the people who determine the outcome of city elections. These are the people who open their newspapers and cringe to see another tax proposal. These are the people who, year after year, ask themselves if they want more public services, decide they don’t, and vote accordingly."

Cole makes a strong case that it's Small, not The Gazette, that's out of touch with the real pulse of Colorado Springs, by pointing out that the quickest way to get a recent ballot measure beaten at the polls is to win it the endorsement of the vice mayor, the mayor and the Colorado Springs City Council. "When it comes to tax issues, Small is so 'completely out of sync with the citizens' that a clever pundit could predict elections simply by seeing where he stood, and then staking a position on the other side," writes Cole -- a theory that could be tested again this fall, if rumors of a new spate of council-backed ballot measures are correct.

Maybe the vice mayor can get his council colleagues to help him put his proposed 600 percent property tax increase on the ballot. Then we'll see who's "completely out of sync" with the people of this city.

Water rights are property rights, which explains why this blog tries to stay on top of the water wars between Colorado Springs and Pueblo. It's why I've also been following a related tussle between Pueblo West and Pueblo County, prompted by the county's heavy-handed attempts to force Pueblo West to sacrifice its precious water (and, by extension, its precious water rights) in order to meet the requirements of an Arkansas river flow management agreement between Pueblo and Colorado Springs.

Pueblo West is caught in the middle, literally and figuratively. It wants to partner with CS on the Southern Delivery System pipeline project, but it isn't willing to pay the price demanded by Pueblo County as a condition of its approval of permits, which involves using Pueblo West water (and Colorado Springs water) to ensure stream flow levels through downtown Pueblo.

It's a shakedown, to put it bluntly -- one of a number that SDS partners have endured in order to keep the project moving. I personally admire Pueblo West's refusal to go along, since it doesn't have a drop of water to waste. But it's making people inside Colorado Springs Utilities squirm, since the impasse threatens to further complicate an already complicated situation.

The Chieftain a few days ago ran this guest column, by a member of Pueblo West's water board, explaining its reasons for suing Pueblo County over the issue. It's worth a read for those staying on top of the water wars, but here's a key passage:

"To help pay for it and keep water rates reasonable, we proposed a partnership with the Southern Delivery System (SDS). It will save money by sharing a single pipeline instead of Pueblo West building its own separate pipeline. Pueblo West would pay about $1 million toward the cost of enlarging the first 800 feet of the SDS pipeline, instead of significantly more for its own pipeline.

Unfortunately, in March of this year, Pueblo County, in its negotiations with Colorado Springs Utilities for conditions to build the SDS pipeline, unilaterally demanded a flow requirement on Pueblo West citizens for Arkansas River water for Pueblo recreation uses. The county’s requirement clearly undermines Pueblo West’s ability to finance its reuse program.

Engineering studies commissioned by SDS participants make clear that the open-ended liability could exceed 500 acre-feet, which in today’s water market, could cost Pueblo West residents substantially more than $5 million, if replacement water could be found at all.

But more importantly for a community that has little cushion in its water supply during the arid years this could mean no new taps, no new schools or parks, businesses or jobs for the area.

This was a demand that Pueblo West could not accept. Pueblo County, in its aggressive no-compromise attitude toward Colorado Springs, informed Pueblo West on March 18 of this year that open-ended water flow requirement was a non-negotiable demand.

In that case, Pueblo West felt it had no choice but to protect its citizens’ water and their legal rights."

If complying with the flow management agreement has the potential to cost Pueblo West (a minor partner in SDS) $5 million, how much, one wonders, will it cost Colorado Springs ratepayers? And is this and other expenditures Colorado Springs has made in an effort to move the project forward being included in SDS cost estimates?

Any honest accounting of SDS's true cost should include not just what it will take to build the pipe, but what else CSU and the City of Colorado Springs have spent or will spend in order to buy the project political support and grease the regulatory skids.

We now know where Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor stands on the wisdom of Latinas. But where does she stand, and what does her record say about her position on property rights? On that subject, too little has been said and written, in my opinion.

One person who's studied the issue closely, and come to some troubling conclusions, is Ilya Somin, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University. Here's a link to his July 16 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, for those who want a lengthy and detailed analysis of the nominee's record on the issue. Somin judges Somotayor a "capable jurist with an inspiring life story," but finds her positions on property rights "troubling" and "disturbing."

If you can't stop 'em in Washington, you have to beat 'em closer to home, in your own backyard. This seems to be the thinking behind "Save our Secret Ballot," a Springs-based group that is prepared to foil a federal card check mandate, if it passes Congress, by writing the guarantee of a secret ballot into the Colorado constitution.

The effort, which is described in yesterday's Face the State, is headed-up by two names familiar to many of us in the Springs, political consultant Patrick Davis and radio host and former congressional candidate Jeff Crank. “The purpose for this amendment is to guarantee the fundamental right of an individual to vote by secret ballot,” Davis told FTS -- something that will go away if "card check" passes and unionization of the American workplace becomes as easy as gathering signatures.

The 39-word ballot proposal reads as follows, according to FTS: “The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires or permits elections or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed.”

Sounds simple and sensible enough to me. And I think it would win the overwhelming support of voters, despite the money Big Labor will pour into defeating it here in Colorado. A federal card check measure is stalled at the moment, while moderate Democrats are bribed or cajoled into getting on board. But President Obama vowed just a few days ago to push this monster through, come hell or high water. And hell it will be for American business, and American competitiveness, if that day comes to pass.

There's still a slim chance that reason will prevail in Washington and card check will fall along the wayside. Surely some in Congress must understand the blow this would deliver to the American economy, on top of all the other burdens it shoulders at the moment (and will shoulder as Obama's full agenda unfolds). But it's always smart to have a back-up plan just in case.

Kudos to Davis, Crank and company for thinking several steps ahead on the issue.

Today, when Coloradans celebrate Independence Day, and their freedom, they’ll be living lives markedly and irrevocably less free, and less independent, than they were just a few days ago, when the 57 new laws approved during the 2009 legislative session went into effect.

It’s one of the great ironies that Americans still make such a fuss about Independence Day, even while their elected representatives shackle them down, and incrementally destroy their autonomy and self-reliance, by cranking out news laws in assembly-line fashion, most of which will prove to be Edsels.

Few if any of Colorado’s 57 new laws increase our freedom; on the contrary, I would bet that the vast majority of them are designed to inhibit liberty in some way. And what about the 51 new “fees” of various kinds that also took effect a few days ago, in a roundabout way to extract from us the fruits of our labors without having to say the word “tax”? How do they increase our independence and liberty?

These 57 new laws and 51 new fees were approved over a three month span by a part-time “citizen” legislature. Just imagine the volume of new laws being crank-out annually in states with full time legislatures. Add to that all the new laws that Congress is manufacturing each year, back in Washington, and the creeping tyranny of make-work legislating becomes shockingly apparent. In a truly free country, legislators would be rescinding 4 demonstrably-worthless laws for every new one they reluctantly approve.

I share the views of Tacitus, who said, “The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.”

Happy Independence Day, everyone. But you’re celebrating something that’s incrementally being stolen away from you, right before your eyes.

Now go have a hotdog.

Let's hope City Council colleagues agree to Vice Mayor Larry Small's proposal to hold a town hall meeting on the new USOC deal. If they don't, the public is being shortchanged. The meeting will have to be next week, since council has to vote on the agreement by August 11 (something written into the agreement). That means people with serious interest in this issue will have to dive into the details right away.

I applaud Small for pushing the idea, since I believe the public process was inadequate the first time around, as regular readers know. But I have one niggling concern.

Having a well-publicized evening meeting would certainly mark an improvement over the last time around. But how the meeting is structured is also important. My personal preference is for an open and freewheeling affair, at which the people speak and council mostly listens; at which people ask the questions and city officials answer them. What we don't need is a heavily controlled dog-and-pony show, at which city officials sell the public on the deal, then filibuster their way through a brief question and answer period.

All topics related to the second and first USOC deals should be on the table for discussion. Direct (though respectful, of course) questioning of the mayor, members of City Council and key city staff should be allowed. I think representatives of the USOC should also attend, in order to hear questions or comments from the audience. As long as decorum is followed, and no one tries to stray far from the topic, or cause a disruption, it should be a genuine exchange of views between city leaders and average citizens.

That's my idea of a true town hall meeting, for what it's worth. A little air-clearing, even if it makes some people uncomfortable, will be good for everyone involved. And City Council will have a much better feel for what the public really thinks about the issue as a result.