Opinion
Lawrence Journal-World l LJWorld.com l Friday, April 11, 2014
8A
EDITORIALS
Picking nits Stadium lighting that shines into your home and could affect the future of your property is a valid concern, not nitpicking.
T
he city probably hasn’t heard the last about the lights at Rock Chalk Park. Lawrence city commissioners retroactively approved the lighting plan Tuesday while approving a temporary occupancy permit that will allow the Kansas Relays to be held at the park even though construction isn’t complete. The approval came over the objections of the only nearby current property owner, Jack Graham, who initially raised the lighting issue several weeks ago. Graham said he didn’t oppose Rock Chalk Park but was concerned that the proper process wasn’t followed in approving the lights. There is no question he is right about the process issue. Even city commissioners acknowledge that the city dropped the ball by not requiring a lighting plan to be approved before building permits for the project were issued. To try to resolve the issue the city hired an engineer to evaluate the lighting after it was installed. The engineer determined the lights were within city standards, but an attorney for Graham said the evaluation was inadequate because it measured only light spillage and not light glare. The commission was unmoved by that argument and declined to consider any mitigating restrictions such as setting limits on how late and how often the lights could be used or perhaps requiring the developer to place hoods on the lights. Commissioners understandably want this issue to be settled, but that doesn’t justify the frustrated outburst at Tuesday’s meeting by Commissioner Jeremy Farmer, who said he was “beside myself” with the “nonsensical opposition” to the Rock Chalk Park project. “I hope we can move past this,” he continued, “and not keep finding ways to nitpick and gripe and raise conflict.” With all due respect to the commissioner, if some of these “nitpicking” details had been dealt with as they should have been, there likely would be less griping and conflict now. The community may, as Farmer predicts, eventually be proud of this project, but that doesn’t mean the city commissioners shouldn’t have to deal with the fallout of some shoddy process that even they concede occurred. Like it or not, this lighting issue probably is not going away. More likely, it will land in court or at least influence future decisions on what kind of development is appropriate around the park. That may be frustrating to Farmer and other commissioners, but it’s part of the job.
Can states help curb federal deficit? Phoenix — From the Goldwater Institute, the fertile frontal lobe of the conservative movement’s brain, comes an innovative idea that is gaining traction in Alaska, Arizona and Georgia, and its advocates may bring it to at least 35 other states’ legislatures. It would use the Constitution’s Article V to move the nation back toward the limited government the Constitution’s Framers thought their document guaranteed. The Compact for America is the innovation of the Goldwater Institute’s Nick Dranias, who proposes a constitutional convention carefully called under Article V to enact a balancedbudget amendment written precisely enough to preclude evasion by the political class. This class has powerful and permanent incentives for deficit spending, which delivers immediate benefits to constituents while deferring a significant portion of the benefits’ costs. Here’s what the compact’s amendment would stipulate: Total federal government outlays shall not exceed receipts unless the excess of outlays is financed exclusively by debt which initially shall be authorized to be 105 percent of outstanding debt on the date the amendment is ratified. Congress may increase the authorized debt only if a majority of state legislatures approve an unconditional, singlesubject measure proposing the amount of such increase. Whenever outstanding debt exceeds 98 percent of the set limit, the president shall
George Will
georgewill@washpost.com
“
The Compact for America is the innovation of the Goldwater Institute’s Nick Dranias, who proposes a constitutional convention carefully called under Article V to enact a balancedbudget amendment …” designate for impoundment specific expenditures sufficient to keep debt below the authorized level. The impoundment shall occur in 30 days unless Congress designates an alternative impoundment of the same or greater amount. Any bill for a new or increased general revenue tax shall require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress — except for a bill that reduces or eliminates an existing tax exemption, deduction or credit, or that “provides for a new end user sales tax which would completely replace every existing income tax levied by” the U.S. government. Now, leave aside questions about this tax policy, or about the wisdom of constitutional-
izing any tax policy. Do you believe a balanced-budget amendment is a required response to the nature of today’s politics and governance, now that courts neglect to do their duty in enforcing Congress’ adherence to the Constitution’s enumeration of its powers? If so, the compact’s amendment is remarkably resistant to evasion. Congress, which relishes deficit spending, would not, unilaterally and unpressured, send this amendment to the states for ratification. Hence the Goldwater Institute’s recourse to Article V. It provides, in the same sentence, two amendment procedures, one of which has never been used — the calling of a convention by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Many prudent people — remembering that the 1787 Constitutional Convention’s original purpose was merely to “remedy defects” of the Articles of Confederation — recoil from the possibility of a runaway convention and the certainty that James Madison would not be there to make it turn out well. The compact, however, would closely confine a convention: State legislatures can form a compact — a cooperative agreement — to call a convention for the codified, one-item agenda of ratifying the balanced-budget amendment precisely stipulated in advance. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 10 says: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress ... enter into any agreement or compact with another state.” But court
precedent makes clear that states do not need congressional consent for compacts that exercise state power without displacing federal power, such as the constitutionally stipulated power to apply for an Article V convention. States can join the Goldwater Institute’s compact without waiting for Congress’ approval. Article V says Congress has no discretion — it “shall” call a convention “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states.” A convention called in accordance with the institute’s compact would adopt its limited agenda with the force of federal and state law, any deviation from which would render the convention — which is limited to a 24-hour session — void. The compact designates as the sole delegates to the convention the governors of participating states, officials who will not run the political risk of wrecking the convention by ignoring the law. In the 85th and final of the Federalist Papers written to persuade Americans wary of centralized power to ratify the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton said: “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” States would be the prime movers of, and would be substantially empowered by, the institute’s amendment-bycompact plan. Members of this nascent movement to use Article V have a name: Fivers. — George Will is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.
OLD HOME TOWN
100
From the Lawrence Daily Journal-World for April 11, 1914: years “A political day ago at the Douglas IN 1914 County Fair is to be a new feature this fall. The Fair Directors have decided that while exhibiting the prizes of the farm and the garden and the orchards, it might be well to offer a few specimens of the crop of politicians. This is a political year and the directors of the fair believe that part of the fair time might be well devoted to the political figures.” — Compiled by Sarah St. John
Read more Old Home Town at LJWorld.com/news/lawrence/ history/old_home_town.
PUBLIC FORUM
Gulag not funny
LAWRENCE
Journal-World
®
Established 1891
What the Lawrence Journal-World stands for Accurate and fair news reporting. No mixing of editorial opinion with reporting of the news. l Safeguarding the rights of all citizens regardless of race, creed or economic stature. l Sympathy and understanding for all who are disadvantaged or oppressed. l Exposure of any dishonesty in public affairs. l Support of projects that make our community a better place to live. l l
W.C. Simons (1871-1952) Publisher, 1891-1944 Dolph Simons Sr. (1904-1989) Publisher, 1944-1962; Editor, 1950-1979
Dolph C. Simons Jr., Editor Julie Wright, Managing Editor Ed Ciambrone, Production Manager
Mike Countryman, Director of Circulation
Ann Gardner, Editorial Page Editor
THE WORLD COMPANY
Dolph C. Simons Jr., Chairman Dolph C. Simons III, Dan C. Simons, President, President, Newspapers Division
Electronics Division
Suzanne Schlicht, Chief Operating Officer Scott Stanford, General Manager
To the editor: The makers of the latest Muppets movie decided to try and find humor in the Soviet gulag. Why they think, as a New York Times writer put it in 1974, that “the other great holocaust of the (20th) century” could be funny is, to say the least, odd. The gulag was “the imprisonment, brutalization and, very often, murder of tens of millions of innocent Soviet citizens by their own government.” All audiences would be horrified if the Muppets danced through Dachau or Treblinka. Shouldn’t Hollywood find shame in dancing through the gulag? Why do left-wing tyrannies so often escape condemnation? Audiences would be enraged had the prison guard uniforms displayed swastikas instead of the Soviet hammer and sickle. Why do the atrocities of the gulag get swept into the dust bin? Is this willful ignorance? Hitler was number three; surpassed in murdering people by the Soviets and the Chinese Communists. We must never forget. David Upchurch, Lawrence
Due process rights To the editor: I was so pleased when I read in your paper that the school finance bill was approved and sent to the governor that I could have applauded. But wait! It seems on closer reading the bill not only does not equalize funding throughout the state,
but also removes due process for teachers! Furthermore, it gives money to private schools. Tenure and due process are no more. Hallelujah! Now we can be rid of certain people we don’t like. Now comes a thought for saving a tremendous amount of money in our burdened court system. Why should criminals be entitled to due process? We could eliminate all criminal trials. If the police accuse and arrest someone, why can’t we just trust their word and send the rascal off to jail? We would have to retain the civil courts, of course, because the cases are about something important: money! But wait. Comes another thought. If the government can take away someone’s rights with the stroke of a pen, are we not all in danger? Darrell Ward, Lawrence
Political decision To the editor: The Brownback administration is doing something good! KanCare, the Kansas Medicaid program, will start the Health Home project in July. This will provide monitoring and support for people with chronic illnesses who are insured by Medicaid. Special staff will monitor care, encourage coordination among various medical providers and will support individuals to get prescriptions filled, keep appointments and to make their concerns known to the medical personnel treating them. The goal is better treatment, improved health and prevention of the
pattern of repeated crises with avoidable trips to the hospital. The funding basically comes from the federal government — our taxes returning to Kansas to help fellow citizens and make health care more efficient. The expansion of Medicaid, an integral feature of Obamacare, also would have improved the health of many people and helped to avoid costly medical crises. This has been blocked by Brownback and the Republicans. Evidently the Health Home is considered a wise use of federal tax dollars to help Kansans and make Medicaid more cost-effective, but the proposed expansion of Medicaid would rely on obviously undependable federal funding and is one more step towards dependency on big government. The real difference between the programs? The expansion of Medicaid is expressly promoted by President Obama, and Republicans are committed to blocking his initiatives. I hope to see the day when political decisions are made to benefit the people, not the political party. Maybe that day will come next November if we all get out to vote. Joe Douglas, Lawrence
Letters Policy
The Journal-World welcomes letters to the Public Forum. Letters should be 250 words or less, be of public interest and should avoid name-calling and libelous language. The JournalWorld reserves the right to edit letters, as long as viewpoints are not altered. By submitting letters, you grant the JournalWorld a nonexclusive license to publish, copy and distribute your work, while acknowledging that you are the author of the work. Letters must bear the name, address and telephone number of the writer. Letters may be submitted by mail to Box 888, Lawrence Ks. 66044 or by email to: letters@ljworld.com