February 2010

Dave Hughes receives well-deserved praise today in a Bill Vogrin column about his historic preservation efforts on the West side, which I support, and will continue to support, as long as these efforts remain voluntary, rather than coercive. Coercive historic preservation can lead to the kind of property rights abuses we're seeing in the Old North End historic zone, as described in a recent Gazette editorial. That effort also began with assurances that property rights would be respected, and that this was a purely voluntary exercise. But that's not how it is working out in practice.

Some North End homeowners now are captive of a process they didn't choose to participate in, and would gladly opt out of if given a choice. The case of the Christiansen's wall illustrates the injustice, pettiness and arbitrary application of silly rules that such overlay zones can bring. No matter the fate of this particular wall, it shows why residents should always preserve their right to opt out.

I don't share Vogrin's pessimism about the fate of the West Side overlay zone, since, from what I've been told, including by Hughes, most of the hardest work already has been done. It may take a little longer to get all the final pieces in place, and for West Side homeowners to apply for and receive their tax credits, when the city is short of staff, but all the pieces will come together eventually. Pride of ownership and community -- along with a pride of place Dave Hughes helped instill there -- will ensure that the West Side continues to improve in the meantime.

What began as a Colorado news story -- suburban Denver man, Chris Bartkowicz, busted by the DEA for growing medical marijuana in his home -- is quickly shaping up as something more significant, as the Denver Post explained last week. The case will not only test whether federal drug policies trump partial drug legalization that's been written into a state constitution. Even more interestingly, it will test whether Colorado conservatives like Attorney General John Suthers support states' rights in theory only, or whether they'll defend them in practice on an issue as controversial as medical marijuana.

Self-proclaimed conservatives love to prattle on about freedom and states' rights. This is a litmus test of whether they truly believe any of it.

They want government out of our lives, they say, and more freedom, but many conservatives draw back when free citizens choose to treat real or perceived maladies with medical marijuana. Country club conservatives can sip Stellas and cosmos until their heads swim, and dope themselves happy on over-the-counter narcotics and mood-enhancers. But for them, Nancy Reagan offered the last word on the drug question when she just said "no."

These conservatives say they support more autonomy for states, against encroachments by Uncle Sam. But they think Uncle Sam automatically knows best when it comes to enforcing rational drug rules, even when those rules clash with state law. They're content to see Coloradans living under the threat of DEA drug raids and federal prison sentences, for engaging in an activity that has been legal in Colorado for a decade. Conservatives also say they support the protections afforded by a written constitution. But that position gets shaky if what is written into the state constitution conflicts with their personal prejudices, or with rules from Washington they selectively approve of.

Liberals generally are content to have states living under Washington's long shadow. The more regulation the better, from their perspective. But the situation creates much bigger problems, in terms of consistently applying one's principles, for conservatives. They may rattle the chains over federal seatbelt mandates, or grumble about the absurdities of the Endangered Species Act. They will cheer if states buck Washington on a host of other issues. But they seem content to let a few agents in DEA's Denver office trample all over the Colorado Constitution by hauling Bartkowicz into federal court. They're content to have the DEA scaring the hell out of every medical marijuana patient and distributor in Colorado, though it's been legal here for a decade.

So much for personal freedom. So much for states' rights. So much for defending the state Constitution, which explicitly allows the medicinal use of marijuana, against federal interference. These sorts of Republicans aren't very different from Democrats, really; they're the kind of Republicans who led the party of freedom and limited government so far from its roots. They're the kind of Republicans who compromised their way into a minority position. And they have to rebuild the pro-freedom platform in the party's plank if they're ever going to offer a true alternative to statism.

Here's a friendly reality check for parents in Colorado Spring who worry that a medical marijuana dispensary opening in the strip mall a quarter mile away will lead their child to the life of a dopefiend.

No one under 18 can even enter one of these facilities without being a card-carrying medical marijuana patient. A facility owner who distributes marijuana to someone who isn't carrying a card faces felony drug charges. This makes dispensary owners very careful about who they deal with. The security cameras and locks on the doors are there to keep the uninvited out.

The average age of a medical marijuana patient in Colorado is 40, and most of those who use it are ill people, worried about the stigma attached to the medical treatment they choose. They're not loitering around strip malls, riding skateboards and spray-painting walls, or drawing attention to themselves. They're not criminals, or the "criminal element." They might even be the wife of your neighbor, who is suffering through chemotherapy. They just need a place to pick up their medicine and go home.

Thus, the school-age children of Colorado Springs have a far, far easier time scoring marijuana and other elicit drugs in their schools, or from Facebook friends, than from a medical marijuana dispensary. If concerned parents want to direct their anxieties in a more rational and productive direction, they should turn their attention to drug sources much closer to home. If the attorney general and other law enforcers are really interested in protecting kids from drugs, they should devote more time to crushing Mexican drug cartels than to bothering medical marijuana providers and their patients.

Does anyone else see the humor, and the irony, in Bill Vogrin's piece about the objections that some smaller Homeowners Associations are voicing to the allegedly-onerous mandates imposed on them by the state? The article even quotes Jan Doran -- who has no problem enforcing mandates on her "neighbors" via her Discovery Neighborhood Homeowners Association -- calling for "a little less-rigorous governmental involvement” in the affairs of HOAs.

I happen to agree with Doran that the state should meddle less, or not at all, in the affairs of private HOAs. But I also think HOAs should meddle less, or not at all, in the affairs of people living under them. The only reason the state got involved is that some HOAs begun wielding too much power with too little flexibility, transparency or accountability. Some people who live under HOAs feel that they've become little tyrannies, which trample property rights and other civil liberties as a result of . . . well . . . of all the mandates.

It's hard to have a lot of sympathy for meddlesome HOAs when they complain about meddling. What goes around comes around, as they say.

Unless one takes the position that the U.S. Constitution applies only part-time in certain places, but full-time everywhere else, you will be gratified to know that the Second Amendment is valid again today in national parks.

Some people argue that the right to carry firearms shouldn't apply in national parks -- these are such pristine and special places, supposedly, that Americans ought to happily waive our rights to go armed there. But national parks aren't crime- or danger-free zones. The right to defend oneself, with firearms if necessary, isn't signed away, and then magically restored, when we cross over a park boundary. And it's absurd to argue that certain provisions of the Constitution don't apply on our own "public lands," because they allegedly detract from the back-to-nature experience.

Yelling might disturb the peace and tranquility, but the First Amendment remains in full force when Americans visit our national parks. All other Constitutional protections are in full force there as well -- with one glaring exception. Bravo to those who fought to restore the full force of the Second Amendment to national park visitors.

John Andrews, writing in the Denver Post, says that the latest attack on the state's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, a federal lawsuit brought by Boulder uber-lawyer Herbert Fenster -- may actually stand a chance of success, since the issue will be decided not by the people, but by a "robed priesthood answerable to now one" (by which Andrews means federal judges). It's a barn-burner of a column, which I highly recommend. After reading it, I'm actually starting to take this threat seriously.

Andrews, by the way, will be the featured speaker at an April 28 Tax Freedom Day lunch at The Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, sponsored by The Limited Government Forum. That, too, should be a barn-burner. I'll post a link to the registration site as soon as it becomes available.

It's not uncommon for right-leaning folks to make jokes or snide comments about left-leaning Boulder: we sometimes hold it up as a point of contrast, showing what Colorado Springs could become if we aren't careful. I've been guilty of that myself.

But today I'll leave the Boulder-baiting to a Boulder insider, Deputy Mayor Ken Wilson, who is making news for saying what many of us have been thinking for a long time. Wilson's critiques became public after a personal e-mail exchange was sent to The Boulder Daily Camera. Take it away, Ken:

"Sometimes people in Boulder, at least a set of them, get arrogant about where we are and who we are," Wilson said. "I think we have a selfish and arrogant streak that we need to be careful about."

He went on to explain that he thinks the city's attitude and policies are to resist growth, and that it's self-serving to "keep people out of the city ... to limit housing to the point where middle-class and working-class people can't live here," he said. "I think that's a shame, and I think it's a selfish streak."

Wilson said he works on the council to provide more density in the city, and that to do otherwise is "pushing the problems on someone else."

"That's selfish and arrogant," he said."

You said it, Ken. Not me.

The real news isn't that Colorado Springs is suffering through a budget crunch -- that can be said for just about every city in the United States right now. The real story here -- the story I keep trying to convey to reporters who call me, the story that truly merits national attention -- is how average citizens and non-governmental entities step in to fill the void left when city services are threatened. Steve Immel's one-man initiative to help with parks maintenance, highlighted in Daniel Chacon's City Desk blog, offers one case in point. But there are dozens more I could point to (and that I do point to when I get a call from some out-of-town reporter, who only seems interested in our darkened street lights and homeless camps).

But even some local reporters can miss the story, though it's right under their noses. Wednesday's report in The Gazette about the partnership initiative had virtually nothing to say about the success stories that were reported at the Tuesday event: about the fact that friends groups have raised nearly enough funds to keep the Starsmore Center and Rock Ledge Ranch open through the year; that our aquatic centers are working with USA Swimming to come up with a new operating model: that local organizations and activists are stepping up to help our community centers through the crisis. The Gazette focused almost exclusively on the fundraising aspects of what's happening (and our supposed "pleading" for more money), though that is a secondary focus for me and only one small part of what's happening.

The Independent's Adrian Stanley understands this, resulting in the top-notch piece of reporting on the partnership efforts published today. But that's because Adrian has taken the time to study the issue, attend the meetings, get to know the people who are rolling up their sleeves to get involved. Give the piece a look, Gazette -- maybe you can find some story leads.

There are two stories we can tell about Colorado Springs. The one the national media has focused on so-far is a gloom-and-doom story of draconian budget cuts -- a cautionary tale about the municipal Armageddon that awaits cities that have relatively low taxes and vote predominantly Republican, according to the simplistic analysis of liberal reporters and pundits. Or we can provide a more balanced, positive and (in my view) accurate picture, of a city that's confronting fiscal adversity with creativity, innovation and the can-do spirit of average citizens -- people who, like Steve Immel, are stepping up to fill the void.

The problem is that some city leaders (and some on city staff) are so heavily invested in sky-is-falling thinking and rhetoric (which they used to try and sell an unsuccessful tax hike) that they can't change gears and get with the new program. We've been beating up on ourselves so much in Colorado Springs that we're reluctant to fight back when outsiders join in on the beating, in order to make some lame political point. This self-defeating sort of thinking is the biggest single barrier to getting us safely through this crisis.

So what can you do to help get involved in the Community Center partnership effort? You can start by writing out a check for $250,000 and sending it to me (actually, for $250,000 -- or even a fraction of that -- I'll come and personally pick it up).

Or, if that won't work, you can go to the Texas Roadhouse tonight (595 S. Eighth St.) and eat a big, delicious meal, knowing that 10 percent of the tab will be donated to the community center effort. Have a few extra beers (as long as you have a designated driver, of course), and don't forget dessert -- it's all for a good cause, after all.

But there are plenty of other ways of getting involved, as reported in today's Indy:

"A couple large-scale organizations have shown interest in partnering with Colorado Springs community centers, but the Community Center Task Force isn't just waiting around for a lifeline. Here's a look at its current itinerary:

Already done

Fundraisers have brought in a few thousand dollars.

SCORE, a nonprofit business counseling group, is putting together a business and marketing plan for the centers.

A volunteer submitted a $1,000 grant request to Sam's Club, and is waiting for a response.

Westside has two pending grants from local foundations.

Ongoing

Volunteers have put up a Web site — cctfsprings.org — where some task-force events are listed.

Donations are being accepted at all community centers and at ppcf.org/donate (link to "Community Development" and then "Save our Community Centers"). Donors who want their money to go to a specific center must indicate that.

At Westside, activist Dave Hughes has paid for advertising to bring in donations through the Old Colorado City Historical Society's "Save Our Community Center Fund" (history.oldcolo.com). As of Monday, his effort had raised $3,480 for Westside. "We're charging ahead," Hughes says. "Little old ladies in tennis shoes have sent in their $20 and $25."

Volunteers created a flier, and have been handing copies out door-to-door. The community centers have been distributing fliers of their own for some time now.

An instructor is teaching square dancing once a month to raise money for Westside. The events are 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on the first Fridays of the month at Westside (1628 W. Bijou St.) The cost is $2.

Talks continue with the El Pomar Foundation, local churches, restaurants, businesses, schools and military leaders.

Upcoming

Texas Roadhouse at 595 S. Eighth St. will donate 10 percent of your total purchase to the community centers Feb. 18. You must mention the promotion.

Local jeweler J P Kreations will have a Feb. 23 show at Meadows Park. Fifty percent of all sales will go to support community centers, as well as 80 percent from a special community center jewelry line. Visit jpkreations.com for more.

The Colorado Springs chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is holding two fundraisers: Youth Speak Out, at 2 p.m., Feb. 27 at Deerfield Hills (4290 Deerfield Hills Road) and the Founder's Day Celebration, at 3 p.m., Feb. 28 at Hillside (925 S. Institute St.). Contact Taraya Bland at 310-4992 or blandsclerical@yahoo.com for more information. Donations will be accepted for the centers at both events.

Texas T-Bone, at 2070 S. Academy Blvd., will donate 20 percent of your purchase to the community centers during March — if you bring a promotional flier (they're available at all the centers).

Chuck E. Cheese, at 2925 Geyser Drive, will give 15 percent of purchases made at the register to the community centers — if you mention the "Community Centers Task Force"— on March 2 from 3-9 p.m.

Hillside will hold an indoor yard sale from 8 a.m. to noon March 27. Admission is free. If you want to sell items, a 6-foot table costs $20, an 8-foot table $30.

Hillside will hold a Social Injustice Film Festival from 5 to 10 p.m., March 27. Donations will benefit the centers.

A "Gospel Explosion Concert," featuring local and regional church choirs, poets, drill teams and more will happen at the City Auditorium from 6 to 8 p.m. on March 28. Tickets are $10 and proceeds will benefit the centers.

Hope to see you at the Roadhouse tonight. But if not, please see if there are other ways you can get involved.

People should have the right to access and travel on public waterways -- this seems clear enough. But what if that waterway -- a river, for instance -- runs through private property: does it become a case of trespass if the boater comes ashore? Does one "right" trump the other?

It's not an easy question to resolve, since both rights -- the rivers user's and the property owner's -- seem legitimate. But river rafters apparently have better lobbying skills than riverside property owners do, since legislators have settled the dispute in favor of the former, over the latter.

Reports the Pueblo Chieftain:

"A bill that allows rafters to go aground on private property passed the House on Tuesday and awaits the governor's signature to become law.

Sponsored by state Rep. Kathleen Curry, unaffiliated-Gunnison, HB1188 sparked debate over commercial rafters' rights to travel public waterways and the rights of property owners.

In the end, rafters won out, as the bill passed 40-25.

The bill, if approved by Gov. Bill Ritter, would allow rafters on commercial trips to touch the banks and the riverbed as they pass through private property. Until now, rafters had been allowed to pass through private property as long as both of those steps were avoided.

Opponents of the bill said it strips property owners to their right of exclusion. State Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said allowing rafters portage is akin to setting aside circumstances that allow trespassing through one's house, yard or car.

"Once you allow government to start saying who can and cannot come on your property, that's a very dangerous door," Sonnenberg said."

On this question, I tend to come down on the side of the property owner over the river rafter -- on the side of the individual rather than the collective. That's because we're witnessing a steady erosion of the well-defined rights of individual property owners in the United States, in favor of the much more nebulous "rights" claimed by the state and the collective. Once property rights become subject to majority rule, or the discretion of the state, they lose their former meaning. The floodgates are open to a gradual washing-away of this bedrock American value.

River rafters who were once prohibited from coming ashore on private property, without the owner's permission, will now be permitted to do so, with the permission of the state legislature. Score one more for the collective, at the expense of the individual. It may not seen like a big deal -- unless you put yourself in the property owner's place. The camel's nose is under the tent. Whether he forces his way further inside, only time will tell. But what's to stop him from doing so, if such conflicts are settled by majority rule? The collective will always be able to out-vote the individual.

Let's explore this dynamic a little closer to home -- on the city's historic north end. Sally and Holger Christiansen take great pride in their historic home on Cascade Avenue. They've spent a small fortune on loving restorations -- on making theirs a better neighborhood than it was when they arrived. It's the sort of gentrification work that ought to be cheered by city officials and the Historic Preservation Board.

But the Christiansen's ran afoul of the aesthetic enforcers on the un-elected preservation board (acting in the name of the collective) when they built a beautiful (and historically-correct) brick wall -- a piece of art, really -- that was a few inches higher than the rules allowed. They initially received a waiver for the wall from city planning, but were rejected by the historic board, in a process the Christiansen's felt was stacked against them. Before they could take their case to City Council, they were sued by the city. A judge has ruled for the city, giving the couple 90 days to chop off the top of their $150,000 wall.

The judge didn't rule on whether wall height restrictions were capriciously enforced (which evidence presented in court strongly suggests). He ducked the central issue. The Christiansen's lost because they didn't exhaust every administrative remedy before going to court. But the city sued the couple, as I understand it, not the other way around. They never made a final appeal to City Council.

No one is completely blameless in the conflict that arose -- the couple probably should have worked the process through, even though, from their point of view, it gave too much authority to a historic board that just wanted to say "no" to something. But one might ask why building a wall on one's own property requires anyone's approval -- and whether it should be contingent on the approval of an unelected board, which rules over the overlay district like a shadow government, even though there are those in the zone who opposed its creation? The injustice of the situation, as they perceived it, made the Christiansens combative, understandably. It would make me combative too.

Historic preservation efforts should be strictly voluntary, in my view, not coercive. This tips the balance of power too far in the direction of the collective, at the expense of the individual. This case illustrates the dangers of coercive preservation in the historic north end. It's why I believe individuals who found themselves in the district, sometimes against their choosing, should be given the opportunity to op-out.

Wall height rules are subjective in nature and arbitrarily enforced, in my opinion. There are walls within walking distance of the Christiansen's home, and all across the city, including in the historic overlay zone, that violate the same limits. But now the city and the historic board -- in order to make an example of the Christiansens and "win" a test of wills -- may force the couple to decapitate the wall. Score one more for the collective, over the individual.

This is the sort of thing that routinely happens in collectivist Boulder, where property rights are always subject to the whims of city officials and activist busybodies. But it would seem unthinkable in Colorado Springs, where the rights of individual property owners are still supposed to count for something, against the claims of the collectivists.

Back in my Washington days (first as spokesman for Citizens Against Government Waste and later as the "Waste and Abuse" columnist at Insight Magazine) I had several opportunities to interview then-Comptroller General David Walker, who headed-up the Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office). Indeed, I sometimes felt as if Walker and I were partners of sorts, given how much I relied on GAO reports in the work that I did.

It's one of Washington's great ironies that the single biggest producer of government management critiques is the government itself; most notably the GAO. Wasteful practices are exposed and reform recommendations are made on a daily basis by the office, and by the inspector generals at various federal agencies. Everything from Pentagon procurement problems to the medical equipment sales fraud plaguing Medicare are reported upon. Yet it's depressingly rare that the executive or legislative branch jumps on the problems being identified. Next to the Maytag repair man, the comptroller general may be the loneliest person in Washington. But Walker brought a level of visibility to the job it never had before. People actually knew who he was. And that fell to the taxpayers' benefit.

As someone who relied on GAO reports for story ideas and source materials, I not only valued the office's role in highlighting management problems inside federal agencies, but I knew it could always be counted on for accuracy and objectivity -- something exceedingly rare in Spin City, U.S.A. Few other Washington institutions manage to maintain that kind of integrity, given the gravitation pull that partisan politics exercises on everything that takes place there. This, too, is a tribute to Walker's personality and passion for reform.

I'm delighted, therefore, that Walker agreed to be the subject for our latest LLO Interview, which can be read by following this link. I feel like we're old friends in some ways. And he's certainly been a good friend to taxpayers over the years.

The debate about the effectiveness of charter schools, vis-a-vis their conventional public school counterparts, seems never-ending. Some studies suggest they're superior; others say that's a myth. Both camps point to the anecdotes and analyses that bolster their positions. The waters remain murky.

But by one oft-overlooked but critically-important measure, parental demand, charters seem to be making the grade. Just look at today's Denver Post:

"Alma Meraz's eyes welled when her daughter's name was pulled from a cookie jar during an enrollment lottery for the high-performing West Denver Prep charter school.

"I'm so happy," said Meraz, who cleans houses for a living. "I need her to go to this school for better opportunities. For a better life."

West Denver Prep — which some parents have come to view as a first step toward college and possibly a lifeline out of poverty — is rated the second-best school in Denver.

The school's college-preparatory curriculum and swift interventions for struggling students have been touted for helping at- risk kids beat the academic odds. West Denver Prep now posts some of the best academic growth in the state.

The middle school also draws nearly double the number of applicants it can seat, meaning waiting lists are long and disappointments high during the annual school- choice enrollment period.

It's a scenario played out across the state each winter, as parents battle to get their kids into popular, high-performing schools during the choice period.

The Colorado Department of Education estimates about 38,000 children are waiting to get into Colorado charter schools. One such school, Classical Academy in Colorado Springs, has 7,800 students on its wait list."

While the so-called experts duel and debate, education consumers are speaking loud and clear. More and more Americans, if given the choice, are voting with their feet for charter schools. And that's a good enough measure of success for me.

Wyoming would seem to have a lot in common with Colorado, when you look at it on the map. It's directly to our north and about evenly split between mountains and plains. People there wear cowboy boots. Some even still work as cowboys. Both states are home to an endangered species called the Preble's meadow jumping mo . . . . oops . . . . correction: the mouse is endangered in Colorado but not in Wyoming.

But one thing Wyoming still has that Colorado seems to have lost is the wild and rebellious spirit of the old West.

It's hard to imagine a good old-fashioned sagebrush rebellion breaking out in the "new" Colorado. But the desire to be free from Washington's suffocating embrace still burns in the hearts of Wyomingites, judging from the batch of neo-federalist bills under consideration by legislators there.

I've written before about my admiration for Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat who isn't afraid to buck Washington when it's in the state's best interests. During his state of the state speech Monday, he accused the federal government of trying to "regulate everything." "The states need to be more than empty vessels whose job it is to execute federal policy," said Freudenthal. "And the only way you're going to do that is to take it very delicately and go in and try to re-establish the balance between the federal government and the states."

Can anyone imagine Bill Ritter saying that?

Whether we can "delicately" re-establish this balance is doubtful, in my view. Uncle Sam won't release his grip on Western states without a saloon-style brawl. But some Wyoming legislators seem intent on backing-up the governor's rhetoric with action.

From the AP:

CHEYENNE -- The Wyoming House of Representatives is taking the first steps toward possibly telling the federal government to back off on a range of states' rights issues, from gun control to endangered species management.

A few House members, however, warn that Wyoming shouldn't seek too much independence from a federal system that serves as a significant source of state income.

Rep. Pete Illoway, R-Cheyenne, is the main sponsor of House Joint Resolution 2. It would call on Congress to stop enacting mandates beyond the powers granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. The resolution lists federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and federal land management statutes as failing to make that cut.

The House voted 50-8 on Tuesday to clear Illoway's resolution for introduction. It takes a two-thirds vote to introduce non-budget matters in the current legislative session.

"Maybe somebody will start to listen to see that the states' rights are being taken away," Illoway said after the House vote, adding that other states have enacted similar measures. "That's really what we tried to do, to say, 'Come on, you're taking away what the Constitution gave to us . . ."

So what's on the agenda?

HB-28, the "Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act," would "provide that firearms that are made and sold within Wyoming would be exempt from federal regulations," reports the AP. House Joint Resolution 5 calls on Congress "to stop abridging states' rights, including gun rights." HB-47 "would direct the Wyoming Attorney General to consider legal action against the federal government over federal agency environmental review proceedings or endangered species issues including wolf management in the state," reports the AP.

Can anyone imagine a majority of Colorado legislators supporting such bills?

Naturally, a few ninnies worry that showing a little independence, a little defiance, could cost Wyoming federal funds -- it's the long green leash that keeps so many states from straying. Rep. James Byrd, a Democrat from Cheyenne, said that the state's access to mineral deposits on federal lands might be jeopardized, and its federal road funding might go away, if it doesn't "work with" the federal government. "So, we have to be careful as to how we phrase things and what positions we take in opposition to the federal government," said Byrd.

What a sad day we live in as Americans, and how far we've drifted from the nation's original design, when elected state leaders feel they need to tiptoe around, whispering like UN diplomats, for fear that they'll anger the sleeping giant in Washington.

I did the David Sirota radio show yesterday morning, in what one Denver media columnist hyped as a "cage match." I recount the experience in today's Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-paige/dueling-with-this-david-m_b_459464.html.

Democrats pull a lot of easy votes out of Pueblo, but that may get a little tougher to do after Statehouse Democrats rammed-through a bill that will increase the tax burden on what's left of the manufacturing sector in the state. Pueblo's remaining steel mill reportedly will see its annual tax bill jump by $2 million as a result. How many jobs that will cost, and whether it threatens the mill's future, is unknown. But it must make at least a few Pueblo Democrats wonder whether they're supporting the right party.

Republicans seized the moment to drive home the point. "To those folks at the steel mill in Pueblo, I want to apologize to you for what this body is doing," one Republican legislator said. Republican Sen. Josh Penry, from Grand Junction, scolded Sen. Abel Tapia, a Democrat from Pueblo, for supporting a bill that could cost Tapia's constituents jobs. "Stand up for the people in your district," Penry said, addressing Tapia. "Stand up for the people you represent who are facing layoffs."

But Tapia just sat there, doing the governor's bidding instead.

Democrats talk a lot about "creating jobs" and "stimulating the economy," mostly through government intervention, yet they consistently support tax and regulatory policies that destroy jobs and stultify economic growth. Perhaps this vote will help more Puebloans see the inconsistency.

The word "infuriated" doesn't accurately describe my reaction to Dave Munger's claim that CONO was somehow excluded from the task force process, or that the group's concerns were discounted. "Perturbed" might be a better word; maybe "hacked-off." "Annoyed" would have been an understatement.

But here's what had me miffed.

On the day this task force was formed (largely on a whim), Munger approached me about CONO being involved. I told him it would be, throwing out, as a possibility (not some carved-in-stone promise) that it could have three slots on the task force. Once Tom Gallagher and I began chalk-boarding a steering committee, it became clear that this would be too many slots for just one group, forcing the exclusion of other stakeholders (and other average citizens, not affiliated with this particular group) who also needed to be involved. CONO would be represented, but not over-represented, on the steering committee. The group was free to participate in all our meetings, as it saw fit. But we declined to stack a steering committee of 12 to 14 people with 3 representatives of CONO.

Munger thought that was a broken promise. But it wasn't a promise; nor was it a promise that I could make, since all I really did was serve as a facilitator for the process. CONO apparently isn't happy with just being a party to deliberations, as one among many stakeholders. It prefers to dominate the process and get its way at all costs. And it's that presumptuousness that gets my dander up.

CONO's steering committee representative is a retired pharmacist. I think his perspective was valuable to the task force's work, and valued by other participants. His viewpoints were heard, respected and taken into consideration. But he didn't prevail on every point (just as every other stakeholder group didn't prevail on every point). It was clear mid-way through the process that he had some serious reservations about medical marijuana generally, and medical marijuana growing in neighborhoods specifically, and his positions seemed to harden, and his mind to close, against counter-arguments.

Personally, I found some of his positions extreme and unworkable. He proposed at one meeting, for instance, that anyone growing medical marijuana in a home be required to disclose this to neighbors -- which would not only stir-up all sorts of unnecessary conflict, and raise security issues, but would constitute an unprecedented intrusion into privacy and property rights, in my opinion. That proposal didn't pass muster with others on the steering committee, understandably (I was there as an observer and facilitator and didn't vote on proposals). It isn't in the draft ordinance.

The man had some more reasonable suggestions, and the steering committee, at my strong urging, did make changes to proposals in deference to neighborhood concerns. We also repeatedly reminded CONO's representative that this was just the start of the larger public process, and that many of the issues he raised could and would be addressed and negotiated going forward.

The situation with small-scale grow operations in private residences requires striking a careful balance (and a willingness to compromise). Steering committee members understood that large-scale grows and selling directly out of one's home raises potential problems, but that banning these activities altogether would raise constitutional issues, stifle entrepreneurship, drive a legal activity underground and reduce supply considerably. Telling residents how many plants they can grow in their basements or spare bedrooms also raises privacy and property rights issues -- all concerns CONO's representative seemed oblivious to. I think the task force struck the right balance on this issue -- and there will be no dispensaries in residential neighborhoods, contrary to what's suggested by the inflammatory statement, about "gun battles" and such, made by Munger in this article.

CONO didn't get its way on every issue the steering committee and task force dealt with, but neighborhood concerns were frequently taken into account, often at my urging. But it's a democratic process. That requires a willingness to compromise. CONO seems more interested in dominating the process and getting its way on every point.

I hope it will assume a more reasonable stance moving forward, since what the task force proposes already includes many compromises on the part of every other participant group. But some groups think the only way they can be a player, and insert their influence, is by "winning" battles that don't have to happen if they would just be reasonable. They get so caught up in their roles as "activists," and their desire to "win," that they lose the ability to compromise. I fear CONO is drifting in that direction.

Munger's griping about being shut out of the process is not only inaccurate, but it's unfair to others who saw the process through, even though they didn't get everything they wanted either. It betrays a win-at-all-costs, we-demand-attention attitude on CONO's part I find disturbing and frustrating.

The people who use medical marijuana, or who discretely grow small amounts of it for themselves or their patients in the privacy in their own home, are also someone's "neighbors." If CONO won't take them into account, I will. These activities have been going on quietly in city neighborhoods for months and sometimes years, with no complaints (and no gun battles) until CONO baselessly declared this a problem. This creates unnecessary fear and anxiety, where it just isn't warranted. CONO would do the city a service by taking off it's "activist" hat for just a moment and putting on an educator's hat, since much of the anxiety about this industry dissipates once people take a little time to learn something about it.

But maybe CONO is more interested in digging in its heals, closing minds and exercising "clout" than in collaborating on a compromise everyone can live with. Others on City Council may be comfortable with this, and with kowtowing to CONO, but I'm not.

It was reported several weeks back that the beetle blight sweeping through Colorado is slowing somewhat. The bad news behind the "good news" is this: It's slowing because huge swaths of forest are dead and the hungry little buggers are running out of food. How much of this calamity is "natural," and how much man-made, isn't much discussed (especially by those who might have the fingers pointed in their direction). I'm of the school -- having first written about the forest health crisis back in the late 1990s -- that the conditions for the crisis were largely the result of policy choices, and that much of the devastation could have been contained with aggressive and focused federal action.

That action didn't come, in my opinion, because of bureaucratic and political inertia, red tape, "analysis paralysis," the obstructionism of the environmental lobby (which won't even tolerate tree cutting designed to save forests) and the pusillanimous politicians who kow-tow to the extremist element. Maddening stories such as this one show that federal responsiveness has not improved, despite recent rhetorical support for "responding to the crisis."

Reports The Pueblo Chieftain:

"Officials with the Rio Grande National Forest are still waiting to see whether their forest will benefit from $30 million the Forest Service has set aside to fight bark beetle outbreaks statewide.

The agency's regional office in Denver recently earmarked $2 million from that pie for spruce beetle outbreaks and other forest health issues in Southern Colorado and the Western Slope.

Janelle Smith, a spokeswoman for the regional office, said there was no timeline for when a decision would be made on how to divide the $2 million, which could be spread across as many as three national forests.

Aerial survey results released last month show that spruce beetles have chewed through at least 144,000 acres on the Rio Grande, which surrounds much of the San Luis Valley.

But foresters suspect the outbreak may be even larger since the initial stages of infestation are not visible from the air, said Mike Blakeman, a public affairs officer with the Rio Grande."

The beetles have leisurely eaten their way across Colorado, devastating landscapes that are this state's most precious resource and biggest tourist draw. Yet the Forest Service is taking it's sweet time about doling out the meager funds belatedly made available. The Denver Post reports that another $30 million will soon be flowing to the state, but this will be used not to counter the epidemic, or save our remaining forests, but to clean up after the beetles and spruce-up the emerging moonscape. Senator Mark Udall called this a "huge win" for the state -- which is a little like saying Little Big Horn was a huge win for Gen. Custer.

This is more than a disaster: it's a national disgrace. It's Katrina in slow motion, but with a federal response even more unforgivable, since it has had years, not days or weeks, in which to react. And it's a direct result of the inability (or is it the unwillingness?) of Washington to responsibly manage lands it holds in trust for the rest of us.

So, the next time someone tells you that adding new acreage to the massive federal domain will lead to more "protection," laugh in their face. What's happening in Colorado and elsewhere across the West proves that the surest way to wreck a beautiful landscape is to put your incompetent Uncle Sam in charge.

Human fireball Michelle Malkin weighed-in this morning in defense of her new home town, Colorado Springs, picking up on a piece I did at The Huffington Post: Link. She even puts in a plug for Local Liberty Online.

Thanks, Michelle.

Columnist David Sirota is trying to turn a budget crunch in Colorado Springs into a broader indictment of the conservatives who live here. I counter his slurs, and correct the record, in the Denver Huffington Post: Link.

Here's a teaser:

"The Denver Post parachuted a reporter in several weeks back, who painted an excessively grim picture of circumstances. That got picked up on and accentuated by ABC News. That's how Colorado Springs became the poster child for conservatism gone wild, and gone wrong. But the city is far from the desolate and desperate place portrayed. It's adapting to fiscal adversity with creativity and a can-do spirit. And it's still leagues ahead, in terms of livability and quality of life, of most places from which the ideological sniping comes."

Read the rest at The Huffington Post.

Users of our LLO news aggregators (left column on the home page) may notice that we're linking less to content from the Wall Street Journal. That's because the paper has begun charging for what it once gave away for nothing, by restricting certain on-line content to subscribers only. Journal owner Rupert Murdoch signaled his intent to do so, and explained his reasons why, back in December (I blogged on the issue in depth back then).

His piece is worth re-reading by anyone interested in the future of media. It's a written warning that the Golden Age of free media content (of public freeloading off news producers) is coming to a close. WSJ pieces like this one, which I would like to post on our news aggregators, now will cost money, where formerly they were "free."

But nothing really is "free," as the economist Milton Friedman taught. Only economic illiterates don't know better. There's no such thing as a free news story, just as there's no such thing as a free lunch.

We value WSJ content, and frequently link to it, but we can't afford to subscribe at this time. I'm not too deeply disappointed with this development, though, because I recognize that charging for on-line content may be the only way that many "print media" companies will survive in the "new media" era. This change is terribly inconvenient for new consumers who relish all the free content we can pull off the web with a click of the mouse, and the move toward pay-for-content, once it spreads, may eventually make it too costly to do news aggregation of the kind we do on this site.

But generating good journalism isn't a cost-free endeavor. It will go away if people aren't willing to pay for it. And the freeloading en mass must end.

Legislators wisely declined another invitation to fight over water Friday, when they voted down a bill, floated by Pueblo's Sal Pace, requiring that reparations be paid (Pace's preferred euphemism is "mitigation") when out-of-basin water transfers take place. Pace blamed the surprise defeat of HB1159 on a lack of understanding of what the bill was really about (it's about "shakedowns," in a word). But a majority understood this much -- that it was designed to increase water conflicts in the state, when we have plenty already, which will only shackle Colorado's ability to deal with future water challenges.

You'll have to get the details in The Pueblo Chieftain, however, since The Gazette's coverage of water issues extends no further afield than Shooks Run.

I suppose I’m partially to blame for all the focus and speculation about who will be picked to serve on the Memorial Health System Citizens’ Commission (or whatever it’s called), since I made statements early-on about the perception that City Council picks “pet people” for such panels. But I think my friend Barry Noreen is finding drama and “secrecy” where none exist, at least from my vantage point.

The interviews yesterday and today are open meetings, by vote of Council. The vote for openness wasn’t close. I can’t prove it, of course, but I think the vote would have been the same even if The Gazette hadn’t made an issue of the fact that we had a choice. So there’s no “secrecy” in the interview process. The names of all the candidates have been known for weeks, and were published in The Gazette. No "secrecy" there either.

We’re declining to provide the media with the top ten lists drawn up by each councilperson, and I will support deliberating behind closed doors once all the interviews are done and we begin making final cuts. That’s because it would be hard to have candid discussions about winnowing the list if everything we thought and said about every candidate becomes public. It’s inconsiderate to the candidates, who didn’t sign-on to having their perceived strengths or weaknesses aired in public. A lot of feelings could needlessly be hurt. As a former journalist, who has gone to battle many times in favor of government transparency (remember the bus audit case?), I believe in maintaining as much openness as possible. But occasionally there’s a need for confidential discussions.

My hesitation with sharing my top ten list is that some people might take it personally if they aren't on it, or were ranked lower than they think they should be. I made my initial picks based largely on a cover letter and resume. These are subjective and instinctive judgments, and my opinions may change based on the interviews. Making the lists public would shed very little light on the process (for reasons I'll elaborate on in a moment), while having a high likelihood of needlessly bruising egos and hurting feelings. In this case, I side with the need for confidentiality.

I’m sure Gazette journalists would insist on a secret ballot if they were asked to rank the best writers or editors in the newsroom, recognizing the hard feelings that would result if all the rankings were posted on a bulletin board. Much of the same concerns apply here.

The Gazette wanted the top 10 lists “because they would reflect the agendas of the council members when it comes to the hospital,” according to Barry. “Having the lists would show whether members of the council might have been coordinating their efforts so they could stack the panel with appointees favoring a “sell” or “don’t sell” position. It’s the sort of back-room maneuvering politicians never want you to see.”

But that over-dramatizes the situation. I have detected no effort at “coordination” in the process, thus-far. I shared my list with no one else on Council. No one else shared a list with me. And when I look through the lists of my colleagues – in which we were supposed to rank our candidates in order of preference – I see no pattern suggesting a conspiracy. A number of candidates got picked more than others did, but never in the same order, and I can’t detect any pattern, if there is one. Moreover, it was hard from reading resumes and cover letters to determine where a candidate might stand on the “Sell - not sell” question; nor did I detect a strong bias in those we interviewed yesterday. And even if some did have a bias, stacking the deck with one faction or another would take a level of planning and plotting that just doesn’t seem possible. It would also be somewhat pointless, since this is a steering committee, not a policy-making group.

What I meant with my “pet people” remark wasn’t that we on Council shouldn’t have preferences, but that I’ve grown a little tired of seeing the same old faces, many of whom are known commodities with predictable attitudes, showing up on such boards. This time, I would simply like to see some new faces, with some fresh ideas and attitudes, added into the mix. And that’s one of the things I have been looking for as we move through the process.

It's going to be hard for Andrew Romanoff to get to the left of Sen. Micheal Bennet, as he mounts a primary challenge for the seat. That would practically push Romanoff into the Abbie Hoffman wing of the party. But he's giving it his best shot.

In Pueblo Yesterday, Romanoff tried to sound even more anti-Pinon Canyon than Bennet is, hoping to curry favor, no doubt, with those who take the military's continued presence in the state for granted. "We need a total ban on (the Army) expanding Pinon Canyon," Romanoff said in an interview. "The ranchers down there deserve to have this fight come to an end once and for all."

Whether that's emphatic enough to put some distance between himself and Bennet is unclear. "While Sens. Mark Udall and Bennet, both Democrats, have voted for annual funding bans blocking any expansion, neither senator has gone so far as Romanoff, ruling out any future consideration,"reports The Pueblo Chieftain. But it's undoubtedly emphatic enough to send another anti-military message from Colorado back to The Pentagon, which can only serve to antagonize and alienate a major employer and economic driver in El Paso County and the state.

While it's true that a number of other prominent Democrats (including Bill Ritter, Rep. John Salazar and now-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar) have been more measured in their rhetoric, they've done everything possible to scuttle expansion, short of simply saying "no." The anti-military message is being read loud and clear back in Washington: Some say that it cost us the opportunity to host Cyber Command, as well as thousands of soldiers that were headed for Fort Carson before Democrats began using Pinon Canyon as a political pinata.

This is Colorado, not California, yet too many of our leaders and representatives speak and act as if they come from the latter rather than the former. And that will come back to haunt us, big time, next time The Pentagon looks around for some military bases to close.

As a step parent to teens, who operate in a world where drugs are readily available and frequently abused, I read opinion pieces like this one with genuine anxiety. I wonder whether I'm sending them the wrong signals by defending the right of adults to responsibly use medicinal marijuana, as approved by Colorado voters in the year 2000. The issue, in my view, is personal freedom -- that's what I'm an advocate for, not medical marijuana. But I know such distinctions can get blurred in the debate.

Am I inadvertently giving my step children a green light to use drugs by taking this position, as the columnist suggests? I wrestle with that question, but still come down on the side I'm on. My belief in the virtue and value of personal freedom in this case trumps my fear that liberty will lead to license. I want them to grow up free, even if freedom has risks. I want them to use their freedom wisely and responsibly, but there are no guarantees. This is what makes freedom a more perilous course than control, rules and regimentation.

Our desire as parents is to minimize freedom’s dangers by maintaining control, through cajoling, counseling or threat of force and punishment, if necessary. And this serves as a metaphor for the tensions that arise in a free society at large. The paternalists among us want to extend those risk-mitigation controls beyond adolescence, to the adult population – from cradle-to-grave if possible -- because they don’t trust people to make responsible choices. But such paternalism takes a heavy toll on our freedoms over time, which brings a danger arguably more menacing, which some call the Nanny State.

I follow a simple rule of thumb when wrestling with such issues: When in doubt, err on the side of freedom. That's because I fear overweening state tyranny, disguised as paternalism, more than I fear the messiness and riskiness of freedom.

The Denver Post today picked up on a bright idea being floated at the Statehouse: A bill that would establish a panel of business experts, which would advise state government on how it can operate in a more innovative, efficient, cost-effective manner.

"Legislation filed Monday would form two panels plucked from the business world: one to scrutinize and reduce the cost of regulations and another to find where there are redundancies between state and other government services.

Republican sponsor Sen. Mike Kopp said the legislation will shed fresh light on a multi-year budget crunch and take away some of the partisanship and politics from program cuts.

“The idea is to lean up state government so it costs taxpayers less to run,” Kopp said. “I only wish we were halfway through the process already.”. . .

... Also supporting the legislation are Democratic Sens. Linda Newell and Mike Johnston.

Johnston, of Denver, said it’s an opportunity to get insight from people whose job it is to run businesses efficiently and comes at a time when those same people are being asked to shoulder heavier tax burdens. The legislature is set to yank a number of tax breaks from private industry.

“At this point, given the budget hole, there’s nothing that can be off the table,” Johnston said. “I like that (the bill) is not presuming any villains in the process. The spirit is right: Let’s lead by looking at ourselves first.”

Now why didn't we in Colorado Springs think of that?

Actually, we did think of it, picking up on a suggestion made by Broadmoor CEO Steve Bartolin in a much talked- about letter. The so-called City Committee will perform a function similar to the panels described in the article, with some of the same goals in mind, and it should be up and running in only a few weeks, once members have been selected. I think such collaborative efforts really can help the state and city rethink the way they do things, adopting lessons from the private sector.

I'll keep readers in the loop as this interesting experiment unfolds.

Government is America's only remaining growth industry -- the only part of the economy that continues to expand even as the private sector (the "competitive sector," as one friend calls it) contracts. It's not very surprising, therefore, that government sector unions have now eclipsed competitive sector counterparts in terms of membership numbers. While overall U.S. union membership continues to fall, tracking the downward trajectory of old line industries (industries that unions helped destroy), the numbers are rising where the growth is -- in government. The Wall Street Journal makes note of this trend, and explores some of the implications, on today's editorial page.

"In private industries, union workers are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace and economic growth. Thus in 2009 10.1% of private union jobs were eliminated, which was more than twice the 4.4% rate of overall private job losses. On the other hand, government unions offer what is close to lifetime job security and benefits, subject only to gross dereliction of duty. Once a city or state's workers are organized by a union, the jobs almost never go away.

This means government is the main playing field of modern unionism, which explains why the AFL-CIO and SEIU have become advocates for higher taxes and government expansion in cities, states and Washington. Unions once saw their main task as negotiating a bigger share of an individual firm's profits. Now the movement's main goal is securing a larger share of the overall private economy's wealth, which means pitting government employees against middle-class taxpayers.

And as union membership has grown in government, so has union clout in pushing politicians (especially but not solely Democrats) for higher wages and benefits. This is why labor chiefs Andy Stern (SEIU) and Rich Trumka (AFL-CIO) could order Democrats to exempt unions from ObamaCare's tax increase on high-cost health insurance plans. To the extent Democrats have become the party of government, they have become ever more beholden to public unions.

The problem for democracy is that this creates a self-reinforcing cycle of higher spending and taxes. The unions help elect politicians, who repay the unions with more pay and benefits and dues-paying members, who in turn help to re-elect those politicians."

With American manufacturing pretty much on its knees, brought low by self-inflicted and government-inflicted wounds (as opposed to the usual bogeymen of free trade and globalization), the only fertile place left for unionism to grow is in the government sector. That not only is turning unions into a major lobby for higher taxes and government growth, as the editorial points out. It also increases the difficulty of reining-in government, and reforming government, when the "taxpayer sector" balks at paying more.

That dynamic can be seen not just at the federal level, but at the state and local levels as well, as the revolt against furloughs in Pueblo County and the ongoing sniping over public sector pay in Colorado Springs prove.

The city attorney sent an e-mail around Friday, heralding the city's latest victory in court. It was nothing to be proud of, in my opinion.

District Court Judge Timothy Simmons has given Holger and Sally Christiansen -- who reside at 1221 N. Cascade Avenue, in the city of Colorado Springs, which when last I checked was in the United States of America, a nation which some brag-on as "the land of the free" -- 90 days to tear down parts of a wall surrounding their home. Why? Because the wall exceeds arbitrary and subjective aesthetic rules approved without the couple's consent, as part of the old north end historic overlay zone, and enforced by an unelected body known as The Historic Preservation Board. The Christiansens lost because they didn't exhaust every possible administrative remedy before taking the city and its zoning rules to court. This, ruled the judge, effectively nullified their claim that the city was enforcing wall-height rules in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which constituted unequal treatment under the law.

But the Christiansens, by the time they took the case to court, had obviously lost faith in an administrative process they believed was rigged against them. A reading of the case history suggests that the Christiansens, when they went to the Historic Preservation Board asking for a little flexibility, faced what amounts to a kangaroo court. Here's some of the history, as recounted in Friday's ruling (I've italicized some passages for emphasis):

Most people who live on the north end are drawn there by the ambiance. They can be trusted to manage their properties in a manner that maintains that charm, and enhances property values, without a bunch of nosy neighbors, or the city of Colorado Springs, dictating terms. This became a charming part of town, and would likely remain so forever, without the need for rigid mandates. But the control freaks have in this case gained the upper hand. And a judge -- a judge who is supposed to uphold justice and safeguard our rights -- in this case found in their favor.

I would have voted to leave the wall (and the Christiansens) alone, because I believe property rights are grants from God guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, not contingent on a majority vote of neighbors. I oppose any historic overlay zone that isn't voluntary in nature. I would like to see an opt-out clause written into the north end overlay zone, retroactively. And I'll be pushing for such a change as a result of this unjust and unfortunate ruling.

Douglas Bruce loves the limelight, as we in Colorado Springs know all-too-well, so his reluctance to take ownership of several statewide ballot measures that have his fingerprints all over them is a little odd, as Gazette columnist Barry Noreen noted Sunday. Coming off a recent victory with Issue 300, and a court win on the petitioning issue, Bruce has been strutting around town like the rooster who rules the roost. Yet he's gone to great lengths to conceal his involvement with the statewide measures. The Gazette through some solid reporting has now made the connections more obvious. Yet Bruce continues to duck and dodge.

Why all the secrecy? I have a couple theories.

Bruce had been on a losing streak at the local ballot box until 300 squeaked by. The only reason he carried the day this time is that 300 shared the ballot with the overwhelmingly unpopular 2-C. Folks who turned out to kill the "rain tax" weren't going to vote for the 2-C tax, and vice versa. Thus, ironically, Jan Martin is as responsible for passing 300 as Douglas Bruce is.

Bruce remains a polarizing figure despite his recent win, and his association with a ballot measure, under normal circumstances, is likely to work against it. Bruce's ego isn't so big that he doesn't recognize this. He's thus taken to using strawmen -- "fronts" in a word -- to advance his agenda, when he can find them. I know this because he once approached me about serving in such a capacity. I declined the invitation.

The second possible reason for all the secrecy is that he's been skirting the letter or spirit of election integrity rules -- a possibility raised by the Gazette's reporting -- and just doesn't want close public scrutiny of how the Bruce machine works. This might raise questions not only about the statewide ballot measures, but about local ones too, since Bruce used the same petition-gathering techniques to help get Issue 300 on the ballot. Would any bending or breaking of rules nullify the win for Issue 300? I don't think so. But it might place a taint on the outcome, and remove some of the gloss from Bruce's win. That's reason enough for him to bristle at such questions.

Many of these campaign-related rules are idiotic and nit-picking, no doubt. But as long as they're on the books they ought to be followed. Bruce has come before Council on several recent occasions, blasting the City Clerk for her alleged failure to punish a violation of campaign rules by those who opposed Issue 300 -- so he's a stickler for details when it suits him. He ought to stop dodging and weaving and evading answers on the signature-gathering issue and show that he's in compliance with the rules. If he's done nothing improper, all the secrecy seems unnecessary.

This would be the consistent thing, and the right thing, for Bruce to do.

President Obama was sounding bullish on nuclear energy in his State of the Union speech, but he's been sheepish on the storage of spent nuclear fuels, having driven a stake in the heart of the best option available, at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Last week he was calling for new power plants; a budget he released this week didn't include a dime for dealing realistically with the hazardous byproducts.The gap between rhetoric and reality is jarring, even for Obama.

It's evidently a ploy to win Republican support for a climate bill, as this Washington Post piece suggests. It may also be a case of the president chasing the polls, in a bid to recapture the middle. But Obama's credibility on the issue is shaky at best.

The president made killing Yucca Mountain a campaign promise, in a bid to woo Nevada voters and curry favor with gang green. It's one campaign promise he actually kept. Now, one year later, having dealt the prospect of a nuclear energy revival a staggering blow, he comes out in the State of the Union as an advocate for new plants. He's a champion of nuclear power, rhetorically, but opposes the most logical and secure waste storage option available -- a solution he nixed after decades of study and tens of billions of dollars were spent. Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

The president proposes "a tripling of government loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors to more than $54 billion," reports Reuters. Yet the Department Of Energy has been dragging its feet on releasing loan guarantees already available. Loan guarantees aren't enough if power providers have no assurance that the regulatory and political climate will remain as hostile as it has been. And no such assurances are possible when the president says one thing and does another.

The president also announced the "formation of a panel to consider the future of nuclear waste storage, including alternatives to a proposed site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada," Reuters reports -- which sends the country back to a drawing board it began scribbling on 30 years ago. The panel will explore every option -- except the most obvious one. It's not allowed to revisit Yucca Mountain. Dusted-off Washington retreads Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft will lead the effort. I guess James Baker was unavailable. Who else would chair a blue ribbon commission that begins its work with its hands tied behind its back?

You can begin work on a new generation of nuclear power plants without resolving the waste storage problem, at least in the short-run, but that's risky, given the strength of the no-nukes lobby. Going back to the drawing board erroneously presumes that no-nukers will embrace a better solution, which they won't.

Republicans should insist that Obama reverse his position on Yucca Mountain before they even consider support for a climate measure. Anything less and they're being played for suckers.