In the easiest scoop of the year, the Rocky Mountain News self reported that it is for sale. While its owners and publishers blustered that this is not the end for the Rocky, the Rocky is a failed business. Even without any debt, even if acquired for free, the Rocky cannot cover its operation costs. Typically, when a business is an operational failure, Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not a valid option and liquidation is likely. No sensible investor would want the Rocky, and no bank is likely to back such an acquisition in this desperate financial environment. Combine that with operational agreements that can stymie a third party acquisition, and the Rocky’s demise is inevitable. This is bad news on a few levels, but mostly this is a cautionary tale for businesses that don’t change with the times.

Denver will surely miss the Rocky, and its minority population who sit in the center or right of the political spectrum will be especially disappointed. The Rocky, Colorado’s oldest business, is a center left (i.e. Clintonesque) publication, and is generally in line with the sentiments of the average Coloradan. By contrast, the Rocky’s competitor, the Denver Post is a lower brow version of the LA Times (sharing a common owner), which itself mimics the NY Times for its editorial positions. The Post is a left wing paper, and without the Rocky’s competition, it will feel free to fully embrace its extreme left instincts.

Even with the Post’s new position as the sole Denver daily, things are not rosy for the liberal paper. Circulation and advertising revenues for most daily papers, including the Post, are down sharply. Pundits blame the internet, which is surely an agent of change for the information industry. Others blame cable news networks, but the few exceptions to the overall failure of print news expose some deeper reasons for the Rocky’s failure.

Between cable news and the internet, hardly anyone needs a local daily to follow the news. Indeed, the speed and versatility of TV and the web make for more compelling media than newsprint ever could. Why, then, have papers like the Wall Street Journal and a few others, managed to hold on to their subscribers and advertisers? Unlike the NYT or the Rocky, the Journal has adapted to some new realities.

If people don’t need dailies to get the raw facts, then reprinting AP releases, the Post’s bread and butter, is hardly valuable. Nearly every daily reader knows the latest sports scores and the latest world tragedy before the presses spool up. The Journal’s readers know the closing Dow long before the day’s paper. The Journal, instead, sells analysis and insight into the topics that matter to its readers. Furthermore, since the Journal writes most of its own material, it can protect that content from commoditization. Also, the Journal’s editorial page actually sells papers. Unlike the NYT, the queen bee of left wing commentary, the Journal editorials report and analyze issues of interest. The NYT, and by proxy, most other daily’s simply rattle and grouse about issues of which the average reader is already well aware.

Also, the Journal is a serious publication. The low brow populist sameness of the average daily is a formula that has been bested. A sizable chunk of young America gets its news from comedy shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. These slick, fairly leftist, comedy shows tickle the funny bone and provide a superficial backdrop to the daily news. Considering the huge flank local papers have opened by trying to be entertaining and light, there is no surprise that comedy TV, with its more compelling format, would capture a chunk of the market seeking escape and distraction over serious news.

So the Rocky is soon to be a memory, and the Post’s future is not much brighter. Of course Denver could never support two papers in this modern age, but the reasons for local newspapers’ troubles run deeper. Simply reprinting AP releases and aping Morine Dowd screeds is not providing a unique service. Nowadays, anyone can go to the source for mediocre fact reporting and predictable leftist views. If the Post wants to avoid the Rocky’s fate, it should take these lessons to heart.

President Elect Obama and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter sing in harmony about creating millions of “green energy” jobs. While any government created job is of suspect value, these new jobs are especially troublesome, and taxpayers should be alarmed at their impacts. In fact the “green economy” will cost jobs, stifle economic growth, limit positive investment, and burden the poor.

Governments often seek to stimulate economic growth with public works programs, although it rarely helps. FDR tried with no success to end the Great Depression with aggressive spending on roads and bridges, as did Japan during its lost decade of economic malaise. The upside to these programs is that the US actually needs roads and bridges. Eventually, people will use them to go about their business and prosper. Furthermore, during a recession labor and construction materials are abundant, making it a good time to build. Hopefully once the projects are complete, the economy will have recovered, and the builders can move on to the private sector.

Obama and Ritter have an extra plan, though, to create government mandated jobs through a “green economy.” Through a carbon cap and trade program, along with other mandates, the Democrats have vowed to increase the US energy sector work force by several million people. Of course, the way to pay for these workers is to raise energy prices, permanently.

Public works projects eventually end, and the government funded jobs move on. These new “green jobs” are meant to be permanent. Instead of a boost to the economy, these jobs are subsidized by a government mandate to use more costly energy sources. Government mandated employment is paid with money people would otherwise spend elsewhere. Ultimately, jobs must be destroyed to pay for the new “green economy” salaries, and the net effect is less employment and prosperity.

Unlike public works projects, which build useful infrastructure, the “green economy” is simply to replace a system that already works well. Unlike most of the world, the lights almost never go out in the US. With the exception of nuclear power, there is no current “green” energy technology that can guarantee reliable power to the US. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, traditional energy sources must power people’s homes, traffic lights, and hospitals. Indeed, for all the hype about wind and solar, they can provide no more than 20% of the US’s electricity, which is why Colorado’s plan to go “green” relies heavily on replacing coal plants with natural gas turbines. Not only is the “green” economy expensive, it doesn’t even work very well.

Because environmentalist Democrats hate nuclear power, they will select against that source of energy. Never mind that nuclear is among the safest and cleanest technologies ever invented. Never mind that only nuclear can generate electricity reliably. Never mind that nuclear costs far less than wind and a tenth as much as solar. Never mind that the nuclear capital of the US is Obama’s home turf of Illinois. Government meddling for political gain will stifle the only “green” technology that works and is cost competitive with natural gas and coal.

Worse still, the cost to implement inefficient technologies in favor of superior options will fall on the poor. The “green economy” is actually a regressive tax on lower income homes, as rising energy bills pinch the poor much more than the rich. The “green” wing of the Democratic party is hardly looking after the little guy.

Yet another sad mess, invented, hyped, and delivered to you by big government.

The government is in a giving mood lately, having bailed out Fanny, Freddy, AIG, and more. Even Washington elites think the commitment of over a trillion dollars is a lot of money and are wondering what they have bought into. One sure consequence of doling out free money as a reward for failure is that every pig will line up at the trough. Since the only requirement for begging in DC is to arrive on a private jet, no one was surprised to see GM, Ford, and Chrysler hat in hand.

With the floodgates of corporate welfare wide open, how can the Government say no to GM and the rest of the Detroit 3? If AIG deserved a bailout, why not GM? GM employs more Americans, and for most of the 20th century was the corporatre symbol of the US itself. GM advocates speculate that GM’s failure will dislocate a million jobs or more. Therefore, if the Government is in the bailout business, why not GM?

For starters, a GM bailout can’t work. GM is hopelessly under water, with $45 bln in unfunded retiree benefits, and an overall $60 bln accumulated deficit. In other words, if GM were to liquidate, creditors would lose $60 bln, with much of that loss falling on the shoulders of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, A.K.A. the taxpayers. A hole that deep can’t be filled with just $25 bln. Indeed, the bailout money wouldn’t even keep GM going for a year.

Unlike the $25 bln for Detroit, the $700 bln financial bailout has a reasonable chance of working. Assuming the current recession doesn’t last more than a year, taxpayers might actually earn a profit on the $700 bln thrown at struggling financiers. This is because, unlike GM, many of the financial charity cases are otherwise successful going concerns. Once asset values recover, their business models will allow them to repay the loans. GM loses money every day based on every measure of profit. Having accumulated a $60 bln loss, there is no reason to expect a quick turn-around. Over the decades, GM has proven incapable of standing up to its unions, controlling costs, or shortening its product design cycle. Free money from Uncle Sugar is hardly an incentive for GM to repent from sloth.

The financial crisis affected nearly all business that extend or receive credit. The bailout was needed to save an entire industry upon which nearly every company in the US depended. Not so with GM and the rest of the Detroit Three. Huge numbers of cars are made in the South in factories owned by foreign corporations. None of these companies have gone to DC with a sob story. These factories employ Americans, and, indeed, Americans can own as much of Toyota, Honda, and Daimler as they want. The only difference between the Detroit Three and foreign owned American operations is that their headquarters are not in the US and their leaders are paid far less. GM’s plight results not from an industry crisis, but from a bloated management that became too cozy with its unions.

A GM bailout must be rejected, but in these already shaky times, the systemic shock of a complete failure would be immense. The pension liabilities alone would heavily burden taxpayers. Given GM’s operational troubles, the necessary debtor in possession financing for GM might not be available. Therefore, if the Government must come to the aid of GM, it should be as a part of a prepackaged chapter 11 restructuring.

Because of GM’s deep troubles, both equity and debt holders will likely have to lose all of their investments. Ownership will revert to the GM pension fund, saving taxpayers tens of billions in liabilities. After that, the GM union rules will have to be reset to reflect market reality. Many union jobs pay twice their free market equivalents in the South, an operational liability no manufacturer can endure.

So, if the Government has the political will to wipe out the investors in GM, throw tens of billions of dollars into an uncertain receivership, and stare down the country’s most militant unions, a bailout might work. Fat chance. Once GM files for Chapter 11 protection, and its management, creditors and unions are on the ropes, the Government will be in a much better position to help GM’s operations and employees. The Government needs to understand which parts of GM really need help, and the best way to find out is to let GM fail.