January 2010

An awareness has been growing in recent years about the oppressive nature of many homeowners associations (or HOAs), which has in turn led to a number of legislative responses, dragging the state into a realm where it really doesn't belong. There's a better and quicker solution for most of these problems, however, as today's "Side Streets" column illustrates: It's called democracy.

If you're not happy with how your association is run; if the people in control of it act like petty despots; if your neighborhood covenants, and the people who enforce them, prevent you from having keg parties on your own back patio; if your property rights are being trampled by the too-much-time-on-his-hands busybody 3 doors down -- there's a viable (and legal) alternative to this state of affairs, other than violence (as tempting as that might be). Most HOAs and the rules they enforce are amenable to alteration by a majority of association members, if they are organized and motivated enough to change them. The petty despots can be overthrown, in short, without a single shot being fired.

If a little good old democracy doesn't end the tyranny, there's another alternative -- move to a neighborhood where individual freedom and property rights still take precedent over regimentation and control. Some of those still exist, from what I've heard. Your new neighbor might permanently park his trashed-out Winnebago on the street, but then he can't raise a stink when you paint your window awnings bright pink.

I take no personal delight in the death of histrionic "historian" Howard Zinn, despite the unhealthy and warping influence his revisionist, left-leaning text books have had on an untold number of school kids. I only wish his "People's History of the United States" could so easily be expunged from school bookshelves.

The propaganda will outlive the propagandist, unfortunately. That's what grieves me the most.

So far out of the mainstream was Zinn's interpretation of U.S. history that even the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr. -- no slouch as a liberal -- called Zinn a "polemicist, not a historian." Yet that never prevented Zinn's texts from winning wide acceptance among educrats, who inflicted his politically-motivated distortions on impressionable young minds. He also developing a cult following among the fashionably left wing, including fellow revisionist Oliver Stone, as the following write-up indicates.

From the Associated Press:

Howard Zinn, an author, teacher and political activist whose leftist "A People's History of the United States" sold millions of copies to become an alternative to mainstream texts and a favorite of such celebrities as Bruce Springsteen and Ben Affleck, died Wednesday. He was 87.

Zinn died of a heart attack in Santa Monica, Calif., daughter Myla Kabat-Zinn said.

Published in 1980 with little promotion and a first printing of 5,000, "A People's History" was — fittingly — a people's bestseller, attracting a wide audience through word of mouth and reaching 1 million sales in 2003. Although Zinn was writing for a general readership, his book was taught in high schools and colleges throughout the country, and numerous companion editions were published, including "Voices of a People's History" and a volume for young people.

At a time when few politicians dared even call themselves liberal, "A People's History" told an openly left-wing story. Zinn charged Christopher Columbus and other explorers with genocide, picked apart presidents from Andrew Jackson to Franklin D. Roosevelt and celebrated workers, feminists and war resisters.

Even liberal historians were uneasy with Zinn. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once said: "I know he regards me as a dangerous reactionary. And I don't take him very seriously. He's a polemicist, not a historian."

In a 1998 interview with The Associated Press, Zinn acknowledged he was not trying to write an objective history, or a complete one. He called his book a response to traditional works, the first chapter — not the last — of a new kind of history.

"There's no such thing as a whole story; every story is incomplete," Zinn said. "My idea was the orthodox viewpoint has already been done a thousand times."

"A People's History" had some famous admirers, including Matt Damon and Affleck. The two grew up near Zinn, were family friends and gave the book a plug in their Academy Award-winning screenplay for "Good Will Hunting." When Affleck nearly married Jennifer Lopez, Zinn was on the guest list.

Oliver Stone was a fan, as well as Springsteen, whose bleak "Nebraska" album was inspired in part by "A People's History." The book also inspired a 2007 documentary, "Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind." It even showed up on "The Sopranos," in the hand of Tony's son, A.J.

Zinn himself was an impressive-looking man, tall and rugged with wavy silver-gray hair. An experienced public speaker, he was modest and engaging in person, more interested in persuasion than in confrontation.

That Zinn became the teacher of so many American students is another indictment of a system that often seems more interested in political indoctrination than real education.

The Colorado Springs Business Journal this afternoon posted the following response from Broadmoor CEO Steve Bartolin to the Colorado Springs City Council, which late last week asked Bartolin to create a business practices advisory group to the city:

Much has been said and written about my November letter to City Council. In that letter, intended for their eyes only (but quickly went “viral”, as they say), I shared my thoughts about looking at the city’s budget situation in a different way.

My intention was more to inspire a new way of looking at government, much the way all organizations (private and public) and families must do now given the times, as it was to offer up some specific ideas on operating more efficiently and reducing costs. I will be the first to admit that comparing the operations of the resort hotel business are not the same as running a government - yet there are similarities with the resort business as well as all businesses.

I think the city does a fine job overall with their service delivery — police and fire, in particular, are exceptional — while working under some pretty difficult circumstances. How do you maintain or even improve the delivery of city services within a cost structure the taxpayers will support? I advanced some thoughts on this; some that may have footing and some that may not. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but it seems that an honest and sincere look at how the city operates strategically, organizationally and financially can better provide a long term solution versus annual random budget cutting.

So what’s happening? Together with our District 2 Councilman Sean Paige and local businessman Chuck Fowler, we have formed The City Committee, which will systematically study the business policies and operations of municipal government and Colorado Springs Utilities. Chuck will serve as chairman of the group and Sean will coordinate and manage the Committee’s relationship with City Council and city staff. I will serve as a member of the Committee and help and support Sean and Chuck and other members in any way that I can. We will ask a selection of local business people to join us as we research, analyze, discuss and hopefully offer up some recommendations to City Council for their deliberation and possible action. I feel that it is important for citizens and community leaders to understand that participants in this effort will be recruited for their expertise and creativity in their business specialties — be that finance, personnel, marketing, contracting, public relations, technology, etc. - tasks that also make up the daily routines of our civic administrators. The work of this Committee cannot be successful without the support and conviction of the city administration, and I truly appreciate the Mayor’s and Council’s pledge to cooperate with us.

When the economic climate becomes difficult, some organizations do better than others. By tapping the entrepreneurial survival instincts of those who run these organizations, my thought is we can help our city managers versus hurling criticism from the sidelines. Please know that I have the greatest respect for the people in government and the work that they do. Operating in this climate cannot be much fun for them either.

We are a private committee and not relying on taxpayer funding. Nonetheless, we believe our work is public in nature and we will organize a website to publish our pursuits and findings. All Colorado Springs citizens are encouraged to share their own ideas and comments at the site. Please look for a press announcement soon for the launch of the website.

My letter was not intended to be a criticism of the Council or city government; it was intended to be constructive and, in that vein, I hope it has opened a window of opportunity and that good can come from it.

- Steve Bartolin

This should speak for itself. Lionel is writing on behalf of City Council, all of whom endorse this letter. See my earlier posts on the Steve Bartolin letter for more context.

January 19, 2010

Steve Bartolin, President and CEO

The Broadmoor Hotel

1 Lake Avenue

Colorado Springs, CO 80906

Dear Mr. Bartolin:

I'm writing on behalf of City Council to thank you for your letter of late last year. We welcome constructive suggestions whether they come from average citizens or experienced professionals, from City insiders or outside observers. It’s why we would like to take you up on your offer of help.

Municipal governments across the country are in fiscal straights and we can’t afford to ignore any good ideas about how to operate in a more efficient and innovative manner. Meeting our challenges will require a collective and collaborative approach, employing the best people available, no matter their backgrounds or areas of expertise.

The proposals made in the letter are a start but we would like to take the collaboration a step further by asking that you create an independent advisory group, consisting of volunteer business professionals from various backgrounds, to consult with the City on two key issues, at least initially.

First, we would like recommendations on improving internal City/CSU operations by employing more business-like practices where they apply. In your letter you suggested a review of benefit and pension plan costs, CSU human resource departments, the City IT department, CSU communications department, expenditures on vehicles and many others areas. Any area where the City/CSU could be run in a better and more cost-effective manner, where services could be delivered more quickly and efficiently, where manpower and resources could be used more wisely, might be explored.

Second, your group can look for any government-created barriers to entrepreneurship, enterprise and job-creation in Colorado Springs, with an eye toward making this the most business-friendly City in the country. A vibrant local economy is critical to the City’s fiscal viability and quality of life. Everything else hinges on that. Who better to help the City improve its business climate than those who actually do business in the City?

Whether the group serves as a clearinghouse for existing ideas, or dives in deeper and develops proposals of its own, is up to you. But the faster these ideas come forward, the better, given the City’s budget crunch. We can’t promise in advance that every proposal will be acted upon. However, we do pledge to give our serious and thoughtful consideration to the advisory group’s work and implement recommendations when feasible.

We leave it to you to select group members, name a chairman, write a mission statement, establish priorities, etc. We only ask that members come from a variety of business backgrounds; that they be people who can work collaboratively and collegially with City Council and City staff; that the only agenda they bring to the job is a sincere desire not just to help the City through this crisis but to create a better operating model for Colorado Springs in the 21^st Century.

In exchange for its time, energy and ideas, the City pledges access, cooperation and implementation, where the ideas are found to be sound. We see this not as just another lumbering blue ribbon commission but as an unpaid business practices consulting firm to the City, consisting of individuals who call this City home and care deeply about its future.

It’s a novel approach to problem-solving, no doubt. But that’s the sort of thing we’ll need more of moving forward. We hope you will seriously consider this request. We stand ready to answer your questions and to work through details.

Thank you, again, for stepping forward, Mr. Bartolin. We think something truly exciting and innovative could come from this.

Respectfully,

Mayor Lionel Rivera

City of Colorado Springs

Heading out to Miami today for a funeral -- which is why my blogging will be sporadic (and possibly non-existent) over the next 3 or 4 days. I got a pretty good deal on a rental car, with a daily rate of around $25, which should cost me around $100 for 4 days. But when all the taxes, fees and other charges are tacked-on, the total price jumps by nearly 50 percent!

Here are the add-ons:

Facility Charge $15.80

Concession Fee Rec $10.56

The Gazette's Dan Chacon has the latest on the Bartolin letter story at his City Desk blog: link. No need to re-write it here.

I won't be posting the content of the letter until Mr. Bartolin sees it. But I will say I think it shows that the city is open to all ideas from all who offer them, on how we can run it and its enterprises in a more innovative and efficient manner. There's a perception out there -- unfair and inaccurate in my opinion -- that we on Council somehow snubbed Mr. Bartolin: read this post for more context. I will concede that we could have responded, in a more unified fashion, with more speed. But we have now responded as a body.

That said, I think this letter opens the door to some exciting collaborative opportunities moving forward.

So stay tuned for further developments.

Instead of just sitting in the cheap seats, throwing tomatoes, Seth Richardson, writer of the Gazette's Broadside blog, has taken the time to draft an implementing ordinance for Issue 300. And it actually looks pretty good to me. It's a little irregular, taking pointers on policy-making from the media. But what the hell; anything that will help us through our present impasse is worth looking at.

One potential virtue of Richardson's ordinance, as I read it, is that it makes clear that Issue 300 cannot override the City Charter on several key matter. Conflicts between Issue 300 and the City Charter are one major sticking point. Council is making a good faith effort to comply with the "will of the voters," as we interpret it -- we've ended the stormwater enterprise and begun the phasing-out of PILT. But we can't approve an implementing ordinance that doesn't clarify now-vague definitions. Nor can we approve an ordinance that's in conflict with the charter.

Talks are taking place between city staff and Douglas Bruce this week, to see if differences of opinion on such matters can be resolved -- something a few of my Council colleagues believe is impossible, given the bad blood between Bruce and the city. But I hold out hope that a reasonable accommodation (note that I did not use the word "compromise") can be achieved. I'll probably be disappointed.

If not, I'm prepared to vote on an ordinance that is as clearly written, and as close to a compromise (without violating the Charter), as possible. If Bruce doesn't like it, and refuses to be reasonable, let the legal battle commence. Maybe that was an unavoidable outcome, given the diabolically vague way this ballot measure was written. But no one can say the city didn't do everything in its power to avoid that outcome.

Thanks for weighing in, Seth. We can use all the suggestions we get. I'll circulate your draft among my colleagues and key city staff.

The debate over the legality of medical marijuana was settled by Colorado voters way back in the year 2000, when they wrote partial legalization, for medical purposes, into the state Constitution. But voters didn't and couldn't settle the question of whether medicinal marijuana actually helps people, and works as advertised -- something that opponents of legalization continue to raise doubts about. Hundreds of thousands of Americans seem to think MMJ helps them in some way: thus the explosion of dispensaries and grow operations in states where it's legal (which include New Jersey, as of yesterday). Yet doubters and scoffers still abound, who believe this is all a massive scam, perpetrated by potheads who just want to get the law off their backs.

One major reason the science remains unsettled, and the debate rages on, is the federal government's "just say no" policy on the study of medical marijuana, spotlighted in this story in today's New York Times. The hurdles the feds have erected to MMJ-related research allow legalization opponents to continually raise doubts about efficacy even while blocking studies that might help settle the question.

Talk about a massive scam.

Here's an excerpt from the Times:

"Despite the Obama administration’s tacit support of more liberal state medical marijuana laws, the federal government still discourages research into the medicinal uses of smoked marijuana. That may be one reason that — even though some patients swear by it — there is no good scientific evidence that legalizing marijuana’s use provides any benefits over current therapies.

Lyle E. Craker, a professor of plant sciences at the University of Massachusetts, has been trying to get permission from federal authorities for nearly nine years to grow a supply of the plant that he could study and provide to researchers for clinical trials.

But the Drug Enforcement Administration — more concerned about abuse than potential benefits — has refused, even after the agency’s own administrative law judge ruled in 2007 that Dr. Craker’s application should be approved, and even after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in March ended the Bush administration’s policy of raiding dispensers of medical marijuana that comply with state laws.

“All I want to be able to do is grow it so that it can be tested,” Dr. Craker said in comments echoed by other researchers.

Marijuana is the only major drug for which the federal government controls the only legal research supply and for which the government requires a special scientific review.

“The more it becomes clear to people that the federal government is blocking these studies, the more people are willing to defect by using politics instead of science to legalize medicinal uses at the state level,” said Rick Doblin, executive director of a nonprofit group dedicated to researching psychedelics for medical uses."

How the scientific debate plays out is of secondary importance to me, since I'm of the school that says adults should be free to use whatever herbal, pharmaceutical or spiritual remedies they choose, as long as they educate themselves about (and take responsibility for) any adverse consequences, and as long as they harm no one else in the process. I know people who swear by vitamins, others who turn to herbal elixirs, still others who dance around trees during the Winter Solstice, searching for health and happiness. Some sit near light boxes to fight Seasonal Affective Disorder. I once knew a chiropractor who prescribed coffee ground enemas as part of a "cleansing program."

There's a lot of quackery out there; a lot of snake oil, in different packages, being sold, with and without a doctor's prescription pad. There's a lot of searching for answers, and cures, for our physical and psychological maladies. I just happen to believe that government in a free society should play a minor role in policing such activities. If some Americans are turning to medicinal marijuana for comfort, what business is it of mine, or of government, to tell them they can't -- or to tell them that this really doesn't work, even though they think it does?

That's a bigger question for me than whether the science is settled.

But as long as critics of medical marijuana continue to hang their objections on science, it's only right that they work to facilitate, not block, research in the field. The federal government supports research on virtually everything else, from the mating habits of fruit bats to the childhood origins of road rage, yet it enforces a virtual ban on MMJ-related research.

What, except for stubborn political prejudice, explains this stupid double standard?

Had lunch with utilities CEO Jerry Forte last week. We talked about CSU's efforts on renewables, including wind power and biomass, which the enterprise needs to meet state renewable energy production mandates. Forte seemed especially upbeat about biomass, describing several projects that are underway or being studied. But the potential problem with biomass, as I see it, is a future bait and switch on the part of fickle green extremists, who claim to support one energy solution on Monday, only to oppose it on Tuesday.

The risk of this is high with biomass, I told Forte, because anything that involves the cutting and commercial use of trees -- even dead, beetle-blighted trees -- sends the wackos right through the roof. If CSU is counting on national forests as a potential source of supply, it ought to anticipate snags, I warned. Red tape, litigation and protest routinely derail even minor timber projects. Access to federal lands has been greatly curtailed since the Clinton years, which is why most companies that relied too heavily on federal timber sales (as opposed to private tree farms) are now out of business.

Forte seems sure that he's got the supply problem handled. But the other danger is that an energy technology that currently has the blessing of alternative energy advocates, and can be counted against existing renewable energy production quotas, can suddenly fall out of favor, given the fickleness of energy faddists. A utility can invest tens of millions in a technology that suddenly becomes taboo. What today counts as a renewable, for purposes of meeting mandates, suddenly may not meet the requirements. It's a game of high stakes poker, in which the rules can keep changing, based on the whims of a demented dealer.

Just the other day, for instance, this story in New West presents a litany of complaints against biomass, including (not surprisingly) that it involves cutting trees -- complaints that will reach a noisy crescendo if biomass gets big enough to threaten forests. We'll then see a bait and switch, in which the rug is pulled out from under those who've invested in the technology. I hope CSU doesn't find itself in that boat.

Radical greens aren't interested in solving the nation's energy problems, after all; they hope to perpetuate them. They want to severely restrict energy access, production and consumption, in order to force Americans to adopt more environmentally-correct lifestyles. Affordable and plentiful energy is part of America's problem, in this view, because it encourages the three evil Cs: consumption, consumerism and capitalism. Only prolonged energy scarcity will bring about the economic and social revolution that greens seek. That's why every reasonable and realistic answer to the energy crunch -- clean coal, nuclear power, domestic drilling, oil shale development -- is roundly rejected, in favor of niche technologies that just won't get us there.

I hope CSU's biomass efforts succeed. I just worry about the old bait and switch.

Sometimes I get really annoyed with Denver Post columnist Vince Carroll. I guess it's a case of pundit envy.

He keeps writing the columns that I would be writing and should be writing, if only I had the time (and the skill). He did it again this week with a piece on New Energy Economics, a field of theory that has nothing to do with Real World Economics, as Carroll points out. But trying to reason with people on so-called "green energy" is like trying to get a Jihadist to join a kibbutz. It's a discussion, as Carroll points out, in which reason doesn't apply and trying to make sense is a waste of time.

Here's an excerpt:

Maybe he needn't worry about making sense. A surprising number of Americans seem to believe the normal rules of economics and government investment don't apply to clean energy — that subsidies, for example, create more jobs than they destroy. Recently, when an Associated Press-Stanford University survey asked people whether policies to combat global warming "would cause there to be more jobs, fewer jobs or wouldn't affect the number of jobs," 40 percent said more jobs, 33 said "no effect" and only 23 percent said "fewer."

The most sensible answer — "government industrial policy is almost never an efficient way to allocate resources, so I'm guessing job growth will be slower as a result" — wasn't even an option.

Most commentators who support growing subsidies for clean energy dismiss the possibility that the money might do as much or more good invested, say, in other cutting edge technologies where the returns would be higher. Or, if they're like The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, they simply ignore the inevitable trade-offs. Friedman tirelessly promotes the idea that "building a clean-power economy" at government direction and support will make us "stronger, more innovative and more energy independent" — without ever asking the question, as George Mason professor Don Boudreaux points out, "compared to what?"

As Boudreaux explained on his blog, "How can Mr. Friedman be so sure that the benefits of windmills, solar panels, and battery-powered electric cars will exceed the costs of making — will exceed in value that which must be foregone to make — these green fetishes a reality?

"Of course, he cannot be sure. Not even close. Like so many other pundits, Mr. Friedman simply ignores, or arbitrarily discounts, the costs of turning his oh-so-lovely daydreams into quotidian actuality."

Last week, The Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball reported that "government spending and price supports accounted for about one-third of the roughly $145 billion invested worldwide in clean energy in 2009 . . . ." Little wonder that under the Obama stimulus plan, "renewable energy producers are eligible for cash grants totaling 50 percent of the cost of projects they do this year — however high those costs go."

At what point does this gusher of subsidies become a scandal?"

Not any time soon, apparently.

It's not just the subsidies, but the government mandates that are helping to prop-up an "industry" that can't stand on its own, and an "economy" that makes no real market sense. Carroll points out that members of the Church of New Energy Economics, Colorado Chapter, are preparing to push for even higher statewide renewable energy production quotas this legislative session.

Heaven help the common ratepayers of Colorado if they succeed.

One pet peeve of mine is corporate welfare, as most readers know. And I've been especially hard on film-maker "incentives" -- more accurately called "Hollywood handouts" -- given that the industry isn't hurting and recipients almost all flunk the means test.

The Tax Foundation is out with a new report on the topic, "Movie Production Incentives: Blockbuster Support for Lackluster Policy," which I hope will get wide circulation up at the Colorado Statehouse. Bills have been introduced in the last few sessions, as I recall, that threatened to take us down the same road. This report might help be a deterrent if they reappear this year.

Some of the 44 states that jumped on this bandwagon are now jumping off, either because their giveaways were too generous or they realize that gaming is going on. Others have come to see that the long-term economic benefits are negligible or nil. Dreams of becoming another Hollywood just aren't panning-out as promised.

Says the introduction:

"Based on fanciful estimates of economic activity and tax revenue, states are investing in movie production projects with small returns and taking unnecessary risks with taxpayer dollars. In return, they attract mostly temporary jobs that are often transplanted from other states. States claim to boost job training with MPIs, but these tax incentives often encourage individuals to gain skills that are only employable as long as politicians enact ever larger subsidies for the film industry. Furthermore, the competition among states transfers a large portion of potential gains to the movie industry, not to local businesses or state coffers. It is unlikely that movie production incentives generate wealth in the long run. Most fail even in the short run. Yet they remain popular."

That popularity stems from two factors, from what I can tell: desperation and delusion. Neither serves as a sound basis for rebuilding an economy.

Most readers of this blog already are pretty dialed-in to the pulse of the city (or so I would like to think), which means you're probably all aware of "the Bartolin letter," written by Broadmoor CEO Steve Bartolin, which has generated quite a buzz since landing in my email box right in the midst of budget season. The Gazette's Dan Chacon has a good blog post on the letter today, for those who need updating.

Chacon's post speaks for itself, but leaves readers to ponder a question: "Did City Council snub The Broadmoor's CEO?" The short answer to that question, in my opinion, is "no." The longer answer is as follows.

Did Council respond to the letter in a unified and speedy manner? No. But some of that had more to do with timing than any ho-hum attitude on Council's part. I phoned Mr. Bartolin in response to the note and we had a friendly and constructive chat. I urged him to share the letter with colleagues, though he seemed reluctant, fearing, I suppose, that it might seem like he was butting-in. I think Bernie, Tom and a few others responded to him directly, but I don't know for sure.

Remember: the note arrived in the frenzy of budget battles and rate case debates. These were consuming all our time (not to mention fraying our nerves). Nothing proposed in the letter could have been acted on immediately. The holidays followed -- and most of us were happy to shut out the noise for a few weeks. There was some hallway chatter about the letter, but it wasn't until after the New Year, and the last few weeks, that I began measuring interest in more formally taking Bartolin up on his offer of assistance. All whom I spoke to on Council at least seemed open to the idea.

I began drafting a letter, which I hoped my colleagues would co-sign, suggesting that Bartolin form a business practices advisory group, made up of local business pros, that could help the city review our internal operations, as well as ensure that Colorado Springs is as business-friendly as possible. But I didn't get the draft done before Joann Hauser stood up Tuesday, asking what we on Council were going to do about the letter. If our answers were less-than-decisive, it was just because nothing formal had been agreed upon. The exchange resulted in Chacon's blog post, and I think he's working on a follow-up. That brings us up to the present.

I'll share a draft letter with colleagues tomorrow (Friday) and give them a weekend to read it, think about it, offer editing changes, etc. Early next week, if a majority are on board, we'll send it to Mr. Bartolin.

What happens then? We'll see.

The not-in-my-backyard movement that once focused on stopping sewage treatment plants and rendering factories has morphed over time into something much more troubling -- and much more dangerous to private property rights. Now almost anything proposed -- even a faith-based university campus -- will have so-called "neighbors" up in arms, claiming the right to exercise a veto.

But that's the slippery slope we step out on when we effectively collectivize property rights, and create conditional property rights, through the use of zoning laws and other mechanisms. A world without zoning is a frightening concept to many people -- especially those prone to NIMBYism. They prefer order and regimentation over freedom. But that's far less frightening than a world without meaningful property rights, in my opinion, which is where we're headed unless we start drawing the line against NIMBYism.

When a ski bum can face prison time for daring to defy the feds, and for being "openly hostile to the government," this country is definitely on a downhill slide toward tyranny.

The intolerance of the individual; heavy-handed law enforcement; rules and regulations rigidity; eviction of the people from "public lands;" creeping authoritarianism: A lot of what's wrong with this country can be found in this story from Sunday's Denver Post. The real "danger to the community" isn't an eccentric ski bum who lives in a truck, but those -- like U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer -- who are turning this otherwise harmless man into a criminal.

Is this really still the "land of the free"?

It's hard to read this story and think so.

Who do I back for Governor? I'm undecided. But one quality I'm looking for, and longing for, is someone with the courage to stand up to Washington when Washington acts in ways detrimental to Colorado.

I want someone like Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who is taking Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to task for new regulatory proposals that will further stymie energy production in the West, killing jobs and depleting state coffers. Gov. Bill Ritter should be raising similar objections, but he and Salazar are birds of a feather. Both care more about creating a mythical "new energy economy" than dealing with the energy economy we actually have. Both see a need for more energy industry regulation, when over-regulation is the problem. Both have adopted the rhetoric and attitudes of zero-drilling groups. Both back policies that create energy scarcity, then turn around and blame "big oil" when scarcity leads to crisis.

Freudenthal is a Democrat, but party allegiance doesn't matter when it's time to defend the interests of Wyoming. Ritter never in my memory has stood up against, or talked back to, Washington. And here's just one result: the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is an endangered species in Colorado, but it isn't in Wyoming. And that's mainly due to Freudenthal's vigorous opposition to this bogus listing.

Will Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper cross swords with Salazar and the Obama administration when Colorado's t interests demand it? That's highly unlikely, given the endorsements he's won.

Just what Colorado needs: another invitation to fight over water.

State Rep. Sal Pace, a Democrat from Pueblo, apparently doesn't believe there's enough water-related conflict in Colorado. That's why he'll introduce a bill in the 2010 session that seems designed to ratchet tensions to new highs. The measure will prohibit district-to-district water transfers unless the recipient can negotiate a "mitigation agreement" with the originating district addressing ecological and economic impacts. It invites one water district to shakedown the other, in short -- which may explain the appeal in Pueblo -- despite the fact that these are private transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers.

Measuring the alleged ecological or economic impacts of water transfers can be a tricky business, since this often confuses chicken with egg. Most rural areas are economically depressed not because residents are selling water rights; residents are selling water rights because rural areas are economically depressed. Cash transfers from urban areas to rural areas -- which is what this is all about -- may make rural folk feel less like victims, temporarily. But it won't revive the agricultural sector or address its root economic problems. Like many other forms of government intervention -- farm subsidies, price supports, ethanol mandates, milk quotas -- this will be a temporary crutch, not a long-term answer.

Pace's bill will erect new barriers to a statewide water market, drive up costs for water users, gum-up water transfers in red tape and create more conflict -- while doing little to enhance the long-term viability of rural economies. It penalizes water sellers as well as water buyers, since sales could be delayed or derailed if mitigation agreements can't be agreed upon, or if they end up in court.

The freedom of people to sell or buy water will be impaired, which amounts to an impairment of their water rights -- which are really property rights. And we all suffer when these rights get watered down. So let's all hope Sal Pace's bill goes gurgling down the drain.

Douglas Bruce has a fairly reliable ally in the editorial page of the Colorado Springs Gazette. But when even an ally can't clearly and concisely explain the true meaning of Bruce's latest ballot baby, Issue 300, it illustrates why City Council is having similar difficulties.

In Bruce's paranoid world, any hesitation or equivocation on Council's part, in implementing 300, is part of a dark conspiracy to thwart "the will of the voters," as he interprets it. I believe Council wants to abide by the "will of the voters" -- I certainly do. We've signaled our desire to do so in numerous ways. But today's unsatisfying and inconclusive attempt by The Gazette to clarify 300's meaning, in anticipation of tomorrow's discussion on the issue, shows that this is harder than it sounds.

The editorial tries to make sense of 300 not by referencing the actual ballot language (which is maddening vague), but by citing campaign rhetoric. But campaign rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. It's spin, designed to galvanize support or opposition. It's unreliable as a guide to what the voters really meant when they voted for 300, since we don't know whether they pulled the lever in response to what they saw on yard signs or what the ballot language actually says. And the ballot language is open to interpretation, as today's editorial confirms.

It's irresponsible to write an implementing ordinance based on a yard sign, or some words of wisdom Bruce put down in a letter to the editor. And we on Council have a duty to say so if something in 300 conflicts with the City Charter.

The editorial labors mightily to make sense of it all, but concedes in places that 300's language is "ambiguous" and "difficult to discern" -- which lends credence to the possibility that Council might honestly be conflicted about how to proceed, not plotting a coup. Finally, it concludes by calling on citizens to make their wishes known to council, lest we attempt to exercise our own judgments on the matter, based on our own interpretation of what this disaster of a ballot measure calls for. The wheels that squeak loudest should carry the day, according to the Gazette, which gives certain advantages to the blustering Mr. Bruce.

"The wording of Issue 300 leaves plenty of room for all of this ambivalence, and therefore the need for City Council to discern the will of voters. It’s imperative the citizens who voted for 300 examine the city’s proposed law, in order to determine whether it comports with their intentions. It is the council's job to provide a level of service the majority of citizens want, and nothing more. Let City Council know exactly what you wanted when you voted in favor of Issue 300, because the full intent of voters remains unclear. Left with this uncertainly, the council will do what it thinks is best."

But being bombarded by rehashed campaign rhetoric clarifies little, for the reasons described above. We can't read the minds of the more than 40,000 people who supported 300. We must ultimately rely on the words themselves (or on the judgment of a court, if it comes to that). And even the Gazette concedes they're confusing.

Thousands of words have now been written and said about issue 300, yet its meaning evades even Bruce allies. This seems proof enough that Bruce -- not City Council -- botched the job. There's a certain warped genius in it, though. Write a ballot measure in secret code, then become the absolute authority on deciphering it.

Government is commonly assumed to be the only entity that can tackle a major problem like the medically uninsured. And that's too bad. There's too little awareness of, and appreciation for, the non-governmental entities that, instead of looking reflexively toward government for answers, already are out there, on the front lines, dealing with the challenge on a daily basis.

This is part of what I call the "do-it-ourselves sector." And we have a very active Do-It-Ourselves Sector in Colorado Springs, as the opening of The Lord Cares Pharmacy illustrates. The pharmacy is the brainchild of Marcella Ruch, "who founded the free safety-net clinic Mission Medical and has also organized free surgeries for the poor," as the Gazette reports. "The pharmacy is being run by Open Bible Baptist Church under the Rev. Jefferson Martin. Open Bible also runs a free medical clinic."

"Through donations and pharmaceutical companies’ patient-assistant programs, TLC will help supply medicine to people 18 to 64 who are at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines — $21,660 for an individual and $44,100 for a family of four — and have no insurance.

Hours will be Monday, Wednesday and Saturday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Patients must make an appointment to determine eligibility before receiving medication, according to a news release. The pharmacy is located at 3204 N. Academy Blvd.

To make a donation, volunteer or inquire about eligibility, call 596-4449."

Ruch and Rev. Martin are typical do-it-ourselfers: they see a problem, they see people in need, and they jump in, instead of waiting for guidance from Washington. While the politicians are talking the talk, these people walk the walk. But the new pharmacy is only one of many such efforts in this city.

Another outstanding example is the Peak Vista Community Health Centers , run by the remarkable BJ Scott, which I'll be visiting Wednesday in my capacity as a city councilman. Scott will be one of the speakers at Friday's Food for Thought Luncheon, along with local health care policy expert Steve Hyde. They'll be talking about the challenges of tackling this issue at the grassroots level. Register for the lunch by following this link.

Americans who really care about the uninsured can wait around for a Washington "solution," such as it, or they can tackle the problem locally, right now, by supporting efforts such as these.

California is a petri dish for breeding bad governing fads, so I was surprised today to read about a good idea taking root in the Golden State -- one worth emulating elsewhere. It's called the "parent trigger." According to this editorial in the San Jose Mercury News, it promises to shift the power over public schools away from reactionary teacher unions and hidebound educrats, by permitting parents to actually vote for better schools. Here's how it works, as explained by the paper:

"The [parent trigger] concept was developed by the grass-roots group Parent Revolution in the Los Angeles Unified School District. If a majority of parents in a failing school petitions for an overhaul, the district must do something — replace administrators, convert to a charter school or make other major reforms.

By law, tenured California teachers can convert their school to a charter if a majority of them vote for it, and that has happened dozens of times. But teachers unions and other groups opposed giving parents the same right. One group called it the "lynch mob" provision — an odd choice of words, given that it would empower parents primarily in minority communities where failing schools abound.

For years, the alliance between Democrats and teachers unions has stopped major reform, which is why it's so astonishing that the trigger survived the legislative meat grinder. Some supporters thought it might be negotiated out of the final bill. Credit Democratic Sen. Gloria Romero, the bill's author, and Parent Revolution for a strategy that turned traditional alliances on their head.

Ben Austin, the executive director of the parent group, argues simply that school boards, administrators and the Legislature must give at least as much weight to parents' concerns as to those of the powerful teachers unions. Trigger proponents framed the choice — unions or kids? — and then dared lawmakers to defy them . . ."

. . . The trigger is likely to increase parental involvement and to push administrators and school boards to act before parents demand it. If it leads to real improvement, it will increase public confidence in schools and perhaps persuade voters to pay more in school taxes."

California isn't the first place I normally point to for bright ideas. But in this case, I'll make an exception. Maybe it's an idea Colorado might want to import -- after it clears quarantine, of course.

A lot is being written and said these days on the subject of medical marijuana -- too much for even a blogger to keep up with. But you can always count on Denver Post columnist Vince Carroll (who used to run the editorial page at the Rocky Mountain News . . . . I'm still grieving the loss) to cut through the usual cant with a bracing dose of clear thinking.

He delivers again today on the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries, which some claim aren't permitted under Amendment 20. The reasoned and realistic assessments of Carroll and fellow Post columnist Bill Johnson are a welcome counterpoint to the surprisingly shrill, rigid and less-than-"progressive" positions taken by the Post's editorial board, typified by this recent call for a return to "sanity."

I sent Carroll the following note in response to his column, just to let him know what we were doing here in Colorado Springs.

"Your column prompted me to put in this plug for the way we are handling the MMJ issue in Colorado Springs, where I now serve on City Council. Local law enforcers (our DA especially) were pressing council to "do something" about the alleged crisis in the Springs -- some seem inclined toward the John Suthers "solution," which is to try to cram the genie back in the bottle. But we are trying another path, by inviting various MMJ stakeholders into the regulatory process, in an effort to get their buy-in on what the city does. It shows an open-minded side of Colorado Springs that some might find surprising, given our conservative reputation. I hope we can serve as a model for how the issue should be handled statewide.

The task force's work -- we hope to present something to council in about three weeks -- may not at the end of the day produce something radically different from what other communities are doing. But our rules, if approved, will have been crafted with the full participation of those who will have to follow them, not imposed from on high or rejected altogether by the "just say no" crowd. And we hope that will lead to greater compliance, more public acceptance and better outcomes for all involved."

There's news. Then there's manufactured news. This KRDO report by Marshall Zelinger, an otherwise solid reporter, strikes me as the latter.

My Bat phone didn't ring yesterday either, alerting me to the fact that a commercial airliner was making an unscheduled stop in Colorado Springs because a passenger was acting oddly. And I, for one, couldn't care less. It seems that federal and local law enforcement officials handled an unexpected and fast-moving situation with admirable precision and professionalism -- that's the news story here. That they didn't take a timeout to call me and my colleagues about it is understandable. Whether council members were kept abreast of the situation is of secondary or tertiary importance, in my opinion.

At 11:30 -- when the Bat phone should have rung, but didn't -- I was just starting a meeting at my office. What difference would it have made -- what difference could I or anyone else on council have made -- had we been receiving up-to-the-minute reports on what was occurring? Maybe I could have leaped into a nearby phone booth, or summoned the Batmobile from stately Wayne Manor. But I haven't seen a phone booth in years. The Batmobile is in for service. And this meeting, though boring, was important.

Or maybe we on council could have rushed out to the airport, to form a welcoming committee, hoping that this show of Colorado Springs hospitality would convince AirTran corporate brass to make this a company hub. We could have handed shaken passengers promotional materials as they deplaned, urging them to return to Colorado Springs on their next vacation. We might have gotten our mugs on camera, looking gravely concerned and thoroughly in charge.

And we would have gotten in the way, creating unnecessary drama and distractions.

The real news story here is that the professionals acted professionally in a potential emergency -- and that they don't need cues from or consultations with City Council to swing into action. That we weren't given all the details until the mini-crisis was over just isn't very important.

City Council couldn't afford to fund community centers through 2010, but we were able to buy them 3 months time, on condition that they explore new partnering opportunities and more self-sustaining ways of operating. This isn't an easy task, given that these centers serve some of the poorest neighborhoods in Colorado Springs. The ability of clients to pay more for the services they offer is limited. Piecemeal efforts were underway in the final weeks of 2009, and even through the holidays, but we must pick up the pace now if we're to have a shot at success.

Toward that end, beginning next week, neighborhood meetings have been scheduled at four centers, for the purpose of explaining the situation, brainstorming ideas and drawing wider attention to the partnership initiative. The meetings will be held from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the following centers.

Westside Center: Wednesday, Jan. 13

Hillside Community Center: Tuesday, Jan. 19

Deerfield Hills Community Center: Wednesday, Jan. 20th

Meadows Community Center: Wednesday, Jan. 27.

We expect good attendance from the surrounding neighborhoods but I encourage any interested person or organization, from anywhere in the city or county, to attend. What might these new partnerships look like? That's yet to be determined. We're re-thinking the community center concept, more or less from scratch. It's an opportunity for creativity, experimentation and -- I know it's a cliché -- out-of-the-box thinking. Those with questions can e-mail me at spaige@springsgov.com, or call one of my city numbers at 210-5741.

No one ever accused the Salazar boys of lacking ambition: Link, link, another link. .

Bill Ritter's body isn't even cold and former senator, now-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar seems to be angling for the job -- after just a year at Interior. Maybe we should start calling him Ken "job hopper" Salazar. He wasn't exactly a Senate veteran when he was tapped to run Interior (in fact, his list of senate accomplishments could comfortably fit on a 3 by 5 card, with plenty of white space to spare). Aside from racking up record-breaking frequent flyer miles, his short tenure at Interior was uninspiring. "Highlights" include his unilateral shutdown of dozens of completely legal and legitimate oil and gas leases in Utah, in a bow to zero-drilling zealots, and his theft through eminent domain (or the threat of eminent domain) of land needed to pave the way for the Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

One bright spot was his removing of federally-reintroduced wolves in the Northern Rockies from the endangered species list. But that stands in sharp contrast to his proposed expansion of critical habitat for the mythical Preble's meadow jumping mouse here in Colorado, even as mice that happen to live across the Wyoming state line remain off the endangered species list.

Now the ever-ambitious, under-accomplished Salazar wants to be governor. It's amazing how far wearing a cowboy hat will take you in politics.

There would be some continuity between Ritter's administration and Salazar's, however. Both men seem viscerally opposed to developing domestic oil and gas (and oil shale) resources -- stances that have helped turn the Rocky Mountain energy boom into a bust -- and both are shameless hucksters for "clean" and "green" energy panaceas that no educated person believes will satisfy the nation's energy needs. (Follow this link for a more detailed assessment of Salazar's record on energy issues.)

I'm not sure Salazar will bend over for unions with quite the same glee that Ritter has. But he's a Democrat, even when wearing a cowboy hat. He knows which side of his bread is buttered, and by whom.

The inventiveness with which politicians conjure up euphemisms has always amazed me. It's entertaining up to a point -- the point where it crosses from merely dishonest to overtly Orwellian. It's almost always a backlash-avoidance mechanism -- a way for politicians to sell the public something they wouldn't support if couched in more honest terms. The only thing more amazing is how frequently this works.

On the silly side of the spectrum is Tuesday's decision by the Fort Collins City Council to jack-up traffic fines for bicyclists, while calling them "traffic calming surcharges." Such "surcharges" already face motorists nailed for certain infractions. This change was made in the interest of equity -- to ensure that drivers and bicyclists get equally gouged by the city.

I doubt those slapped with the higher fines will be calmed by the phony nomenclature. Whether collecting higher fines will really have a "calming" effect on Fort Collins traffic is also doubtful. But at least the city is being honest about one thing: proceeds from the "surcharges" will be used to help pay the salaries of the cops who write the tickets.

Contrary to the impression one might get from reading The Gazette, City Council will make no major decisions today on the fate of Memorial Health System, when we meet jointly with Memorial's board. Today we're just talking about what to talk about -- about how to conduct a balanced, inclusive and fruitful community conversation on the issue, as per the recommendation of the Sustainable Funding Committee. What might come of all this is anyone's guess. There's no reason for people to get distraught. Any major change will only come after a lengthy debate, and can't happen without voter approval.

It's probably no mystery: I'm predisposed toward selling the health system, with certain caveats. The price must be right, obviously. The proceeds must not be squandered, but wisely stewarded. Reasonable provisions should be made on indigent care. But my perspective may change as the conversation unfolds, and as new facts and arguments come to light. That's the whole purpose of a community conversation, after all -- to come together, to reason together, and to let the best arguments prevail.

Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels gave a decidedly snide reception to a new report from Americans for Prosperity, "Killing the Golden Goose: a Report on Colorado's Economic Future," by picking out a few nits in an otherwise valuable, 71-page effort. Bartels apparently feels the report lays too much blame for Colorado's slide toward Californification on Gov. Bill Ritter and statehouse Democrats (though, being the party in charge, I'm not sure where else that responsibility should rest). She indulges in a bit of overt editorializing, too, by writing that "The report reads like a conservative manifesto," in that it lauds TABOR, is critical of labor unions and calls for the repeal of the autopilot spending mandates in Amendment 23. She then points out several alleged "errors," neither of which seem major to me.

I don't read enough Lynn Bartels bylines to know whether she's similarly dismissive of the "liberal manifestos" routinely turned-out by left-leaning policy groups. But I've seen a lot of these reports get much more respectful treatment in the Post. Whether Denver Post reporters customarily comb through these reports, searching for errors and discrepancies to highlight, isn't something I've studied. It's hard to say, therefore, whether this is just equal opportunity media cynicism, or political bias. But I'll start paying more attention in the future, since it seems that there might be a double standard, betraying a bias, at work.

Judge the merits of AFP's report for yourself by downloading it here. I think it's an excellent resource, with some worthwhile recommendations for keeping the state off the slippery slope toward California.

Two locals (Douglas Bruce and Jeff Crank, who runs AFP's Colorado chapter) also make cameos in the story, which LLO readers might find interesting. Here's the relevant excerpt:

"The report credits TABOR as the reason Colorado is not in worse shape in this recession, and it blasts Democrats for attempting to circumvent it with fee increases and such that have not gone to the voters.

"On taxes and spending, we've seen over the last couple of years an assault by people in both political parties, and I'm not specifically talking about legislators or those who are holding public office," Crank said, adding the business community is guilty, too, of trying to undermine TABOR.

Under questioning, Crank said his group has not taken a position yet on three proposed ballot measures that would slash at least $1 billion annually in state taxes, roll back property taxes statewide and dramatically limit government's ability to construct new buildings.

Critics claim TABOR author Douglas Bruce is behind the measures, which would cripple government.

"Our goal isn't to strangle government," Crank said. "It's to make government as lean and as strong as possible in the areas that it needs to perform, like the area of transportation infrastructure."

Crank said Coloradans need to separate Bruce from TABOR.

"I'm a fan of TABOR. I'm not a fan of Doug Bruce," Crank said. "I think Doug Bruce in so many ways has made the (anti-tax) movement about him. When you start to make it about you as a person, you take the focus off what is really important and that is the movement."

Bruce said he had no comment."

No comment from Bruce? That by itself is newsworthy.

Brian Lamb, the founder and CEO of the C-SPAN networks, is one of the great (though unheralded) Americans of our time, in my opinion. That most Americans don't know or care who he is doesn't mean he hasn't done them an invaluable service, by creating a set of cable channels that give average people unprecedented (and unbiased) access to the inner workings of Washington, D.C. It comes to them direct, without any "mainstream media" filter. It comes to them straight: Lamb carefully picks his on-air personalities not just for their high degree of intelligence and civic literacy, but for their notable lack of personality and political agendas. People speak in full sentences on C-SPAN, not sound-bites. And it comes to Americans free, courtesy of responsible cable providers.

Now the normally low-key Lamb is courting potential controversy by trying to do Americans another huge favor: He's asking Congress to open House-Senate CongressCare negotiations to C-SPAN cameras, which would give the people an unprecedented look into the inner-inner-workings of Congress -- taking us right into the backrooms where the deals are cut. That's why it's highly unlikely Congress will comply with Lamb's request.

"As your respective chambers work to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate health care bills, C-SPAN requests that you open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage," Lamb wrote in a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders. "President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American. We hope you will give serious consideration to this request. We are most willing to employ the latest digital technology to make the cameras, lights and microphones as unobtrusive as possible."

The more unobtrusive C-SPAN can be, the better, in my opinion. Maybe some of the conferees will forget they're being recorded, drop the phony veneers and become what they really are behind closed doors, in unscripted action. The network's presence might confer an even greater benefit, however -- a blessing, really -- if the presence of cameras serves to reduce or eliminate the sort of back room deal-cutting, logrolling and earmark-chasing that normally marks such sessions.

One public interest will be served by pushing back the frontiers of government transparency. Another will be served if that transparency fosters more restraint, caution and circumspection on the part of conference participants, resulting in a better piece of legislation than we would see if the cameras are excluded. The bill will still stink. But it may stink a little less.

The Congressional switchboard is at 202-224-3121 if you want to weigh-in on the issue. It's not just Congress that needs to support this proposal, though. President Obama said during a 2008 presidential debate that he would be "broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," if this piece of legislation ever came to pass. Now is the time for Obama to make good on that promise.

Most Americans have heard of the EPA. Others may know something about the ESA. But when it comes to sorting through the alphabet soup of important federal acronyms, NEPA flies below the radar screens of most Americans. That will have to change, however, if the National Environmental Policy Act -- the law that sets the procedures according to which virtually all federal land use decisions are made -- isn't to become another vehicle for advancing the Obama administration's radical climate change agenda.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that the White House "is poised to order all federal agencies to evaluate any major actions they take, such as building highways or logging national forests, to determine how they would contribute to and be affected by climate change." It's a step "long sought by environmentalists," according to the story -- which means it's something reasonable people should fear. NEPA already is a major contributor to the red tape, "analysis paralysis" and endless litigation that bogs-down federal rulemaking and ties-up federal courts. This will exponentially aggravate that problem.

Reports the Times:

"Environmentalists say the move would provide new incentives for the government to minimize the heat-trapping gas emissions scientists blame for global warming. Republicans have opposed it as potentially inhibiting economic growth.

The new order would expand the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, a landmark statute that turns 40 today. The act already requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts such as land use, species health and air and water quality when approving projects.

By formalizing a requirement to consider effects on climate -- a step some agencies already take -- the administration would introduce a broad new spectrum of issues to be considered. It could also open up new avenues for environmentalists to attack, delay or halt proposed government actions. The environmental impact statements originally required by the act have become routine battlegrounds for environmentalists, developers and others.

Under the order, agencies would need to account for whether such factors as predicted rises in sea levels would affect proposed new roads along shorelines; or whether, because of temperature changes and species migration, clear-cutting a patch of forest would result in new types of trees replacing the originals."

Make every NEPA action contingent on an assessment of alleged climate impacts and you'll tie the country in Gordian knots nearly impossible to untangle. It's a recipe for more bureaucracy, more lawsuits, more conflict, more paralysis -- at a time when the federal government needs to be more agile and more responsive, not less so. This is another anchor on the U.S. economy, a barrier to domestic energy production, another hurdle Western states must clear in responding to the forest health crisis. We should be streamlining, reforming or repealing NEPA, not vesting it with more power.

Obamatons deny that this broad new mandate will slow federal rulemaking or put a stranglehold on the economy. But how could it not? That's about as believable as saying that a trillion dollar health care overhaul won't increase the deficit.

Then there's a Constitutional question. Like the Obama administration's recent decision to have EPA regulate CO2, this seems like an attempt to institute a national climate change agenda via executive action, without the involvement of Congress. A majority in this Congress isn't likely to raise many objections, it's true. But one party rule won't last forever, and the long-term damage this sort of unilateralism could do to our system of checks and balances is something else worth considering.