Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
I recently received a response from U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., addressing my concerns for the proposed elimination of funding for public broadcasting. In it, he notes that he believes public broadcasting “is capable of funding itself through private resources.”
Although I respect the difficult task we face in getting the federal budget under control, I find the rationale he gives for the elimination of funding for public broadcasting to be indicative of what seems to be a blindingly narrow partisan perspective towards the current budget debate.
To assert that the disproportionate proposed funding cuts to education, health, environmental protection, and, in this case, public broadcasting are being done from a sense of fiscal responsibility is rich in hypocrisy.
Rep. Tipton in fact recently voted against considering a motion to amend House Joint Resolution 44, which would have cut the substantial tax subsidies for major oil companies and potentially added over $45 billion to the federal budget over the next decade.
Such a notion has recently been supported by the likes of Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., former Shell Oil CEO John Hoffmeister, and at one time even by former President George W. Bush, all asserting that in times of high oil prices, subsidies provide little, if any, additional incentive for exploration and development.
Combined with forward-looking cuts and stimulus strategies, such measures may go much further to enhance the region’s long-term economic health than the reactionary tactics being seen in the current legislative arena.
If it is Tipton’s rationale that a sector does not need public support when it is capable of sustaining itself through private resources, it very well deserves to be directed at entities other than those seemingly contrary to his ideological views.
The concern surrounding eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting seems, again, to be indicative of a reactionary and, in some cases, even retributive approach to governing seen in the current political arena. It is with respect that I hope that any discontentment around the current budget debate can be directed to press Mr. Tipton to be more inclusive and prudent in his public service.
I have heard Garfield County Commissioner John Martin say that wastewater such as that from gas drilling can be recycled. While that’s true, to a point, it’s not a fix for the problem of highly contaminated water that is a byproduct of fracking.
The March 2 edition of the New York Times published an article on the topic. The web source is: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02gas.html
It is titled “Wastewater Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process,” and it is written by Ian Urbina.
While the article pertains to gas fracking in Pennsylvania, we all know that potable water is an even bigger issue in Colorado.
I would hope that Mr. Martin would reconsider.
Laura Van Dyne
Thanks to Tina Holtz for her March 3 letter to the editor in which she provided the positive “facts of life” about our much maligned oil and gas industry.
As one of many “fair and balanced” residents of Battlement Mesa living among the “nattering nabobs of negativity,” I greatly appreciate her effort to set the record straight.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
The Forest Service plans to replace the Carbondale Aspen-Sopris ranger district station with a newer, larger facility.