Today's Washington Post contains an editorial placing responsibility for the failure or passage of the Colombian free trade agreement squarely at the feet of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and suggests she open a dialogue with President Bush to assure passage of the mutually beneficial agreement.

Sometime after Congress returns from Easter recess this week, President Bush is likely to present the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement for the approval of the House and Senate. As we have said, the proposed pact is good policy for both Colombia and the United States. Colombia has long enjoyed periodically renewable tariff-free access to the U.S. market; the agreement would make that permanent. In exchange, U.S. producers would, for the first time, get the same tariff-free deal when they export to Colombia. Meanwhile, the agreement contains labor and environmental protections much like those that Congress has already approved in a U.S.-Peru trade pact. A vote for the Colombia deal would show Latin America that a staunch U.S. ally will be rewarded for improving its human rights record and resisting the anti-American populism of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Sending the agreement to the House of Representatives without the prior approval of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would be risky for the president; usually, the executive and legislative branches tee up such votes cooperatively. But months of Democratic resistance to the Colombia deal may have left Mr. Bush no choice. The agreement is being held hostage by members of the House (and Senate) who argue that Colombia -- despite a dramatic drop in its overall murder toll under the leadership of President Alvaro Uribe -- hasn't done enough to protect trade union activists or to punish past murders of labor leaders. It's a spurious complaint: Actually, in 2006, union members were slightly less likely than the average Colombian to be murdered. But the human rights issue has served as cover for many Democrats whose true objections are to free trade itself.

The leading Democratic presidential candidates have been promoting protectionist policies that protect their powerful labor constituencies.  We hope Speaker Pelosi listens to reason and doesn't follow the same path.

The New York Post publishes an editorial regarding Senator Obama's plans to raise capital-gains taxes, saying it appreciated the Senator's attempts to "moderate" his tax increases; but that no increase at all would be a better plan.

Problem is, all taxes distort economic decision-making - and that's especially true of those on capital gains or profits made in the buying and selling of stock.

And while it's a slight comfort to see Obama moderate somewhat his tax-hiking proclivities - he'd previously suggested nearly doubling the rate, to 28 percent - his apparent desire to discourage investment in the middle of a sharp economic downturn is unnerving to say the least.

Which, make no mistake, is exactly what his tax hike would do.