Robert Grubb: Craig


I write to thank the editor for his coverage of the past Monday meeting of AARP where three of our four candidates for commissioner met to discuss views with each other and with the audience. Again, thank you for the coverage. It was a great two-hour meeting.

Now to the residents: I disagree with Tom Gray when he cautioned "that many amendments are the work of special groups which when their proposals aren't approved by the Legislature they take the amendment route." Actually I agree with the statement, but not with the cautioning. Did I flip-flop here, or did I provide a clarification? Our legislators do not sit on some Mount Olympus without distraction to seek the best interests of "we the people." Would it not be more true to say that the interests (big or small) with more money prevail on our legislature over the interests (usually small) with less money? Case in point! Who spoke through Jack Taylor to get more gambling in Colorado? We the people?

The two comments that Saed Tayyara makes about amendments he sees as negative while I see them as often positive. The reader should go back to the Craig Daily Press article from Oct. 26 to make up his or her mind.

I can thank God for Colorado's amendment process. Most states don't have such a process. Yes, it does clutter up our state Constitution, but I view it as we the people speaking. It allows the people and the special interest groups with less money to have a rebuttal and bring the issue to all of us for a vote. Our amendment process allows the Legislature (winning big money interest) to again be challenged by the smaller interest groups before the citizens. Then let we the people vote (judge)! Sounds almost biblical, doesn't it (I Corinthians 14:29)?

While all three of the candidates seem to oppose the proposed amendments, Amendment 37 is getting the most flack. What is behind this? Excel Energy is pushing for the defeat of the Amendment 37, but why should it really care? Why should Excel Energy care from where it gets the energy? I doubt that it does, but its suppliers do care. There goes 7 percent supply profits for them. They don't care if we the people's cost goes up! How laughable they should use the argument that alternate fuels will increase we the people's final bills just as they, through Excel Energy, are raising our prices because of their $55 a barrel charge. Now that's a real forced fuel increase -- we don't get to vote about that one!

I almost bought it until I was listening to PBS Friday evening's lineup and Wall Street with Fortune Magazine in particular. On Oct. 14, to my surprise, I heard Mayo Shattuck III, chairman of Constellation Energy Group say that it was important for all the states to get the alternate fuel energy use up to 10 percent across the United States. Apparently the 10 percent is suggested to get increased investment and economies of scale which result in lower prices per unit of electricity.

With more alternate fuels/energy in the mix, we the people will not be forced to go along with every oil company price increase. In dealing with big money we need to have them truly competing. The more major sources of energy we have developed, the less we will be at the whim of one. Am I getting biblical again? Proverbs 11:14 -- In the multitude of counselors (energy sources?) there is safety.

Say, maybe that's why we have three commissioners instead of one.

Interesting how that old book is still so relevant, especially if we listen to it and bow before the one who breathed it forth (2 Timothy 3:16 and 17).

Robert Grubb

Commenting has been disabled for this item.