Posted: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:00 am
Star-Tribune Editorial Board
U.S. Sen. John Barrasso announced last week that he's the first chairman of the newly formed Senate Western Caucus, a group of senators from Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and other states who are "committed to upholding the fundamental principles of the West."
There's certainly a place for such a caucus in the Senate. Western states do have a number of common concerns, and organizing a group to articulate a Western perspective on important national issues is a commendable idea.
But there are a couple of problems with the newly formed group:
* The only members so far are Republicans. The fact is, there are a number of Democratic senators in the region who are just as "Western" as the GOP members of the new caucus, such as John Tester and Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Udall of Colorado, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. The fact that no Democrats have joined the caucus raises questions about whether the group is really organized around Western ideals, or if it's a partisan body whose primary purpose is to decry any Democratic proposal.
* The press release announcing the new caucus identifies numerous ideas it opposes - "federal intrusion in the everyday lives of Americans," "spending billions in taxpayer dollars" to "legislate economic progress," and "strict environmental regulations" - but offers little explanation of what its members specifically hope to accomplish.
History shows that while many organizations form to oppose certain things, those that are sustained over time succeed because of accomplishments based on positive action. An effective Western caucus should be about getting things done for the region and the nation, not just putting up roadblocks.
The primary target of the new caucus appears to be legislation that would impose limits on greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, which most scientists agree are contributing to global climate change. Republicans say the "cap-and-trade" system included in a bill that was approved in a test vote in the House on Friday would amount to the largest tax increase in history; supporters say limiting greenhouse gas emissions is the only way to move the nation toward cleaner and more efficient forms of energy.
Members of the Senate Western Caucus have introduced their own energy bill, which they say encourages development and use of all energy resources, including wind, nuclear, oil, natural gas and coal. We'll acknowledge that action does go beyond simply opposing Democrats' energy legislation. But is it fair to imply that anyone who favors carbon limits is anti-Western? We don't think so.
That's not to say the House bill is the best approach to the issue. But wouldn't a bipartisan Senate Western Caucus have a better chance of helping bring about effective energy legislation than the GOP senators' current approach?
While energy legislation is the big issue of the moment, a bipartisan Senate Western Caucus could provide a strong, balanced voice on a wide variety of issues, including wild horse management, national park funding, livestock grazing, water, wilderness protection, livestock and wildlife diseases, and endangered species.
There will be times when Sen. Barrasso has no choice but to speak loudly against measures that are contrary to the interests of Wyoming and the West. But to represent the state effectively, he must collaborate with majority Democrats, as he did last week in introducing a bill to improve rural health care with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
That's the direction we encourage Sen. Barrasso to take.
Our view
With a bipartisan approach, a Senate Western Caucus could be an effective voice for the region.
Click here to submit a letter to the editor.
Editorial Board
Nathan Bekke, publisher
Chad Baldwin, editor
Kerry Drake, opinion editor
Sally Ann Shurmur, community news editor
Ron Gullberg, managing editor