Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad: Sept. 12 Los Angeles Times on the federal government's credit rating: In case anyone had forgotten, Moody's Investors Service issued a stark reminder Sept. 11 that the federal government is speeding headlong toward a political and financial cliff. On Jan. 1, a number of temporary tax cuts are due to expire just as new spending restraints kick in, pulling hundreds of billions of dollars out of the U.S. economy and potentially triggering another recession. At the same time, Washington is expected to reach the limit of its borrowing authority, necessitating another increase in its debt limit. If lawmakers and the White House can't reach a budget deal that effectively manages those problems, Moody's said, it expects to downgrade the federal government's credit rating. That might seem unduly pessimistic if so many congressional Republicans hadn't called for the government to stiff its creditors last year instead of raising the debt ceiling. One of the three major ratings agencies, Standard & Poor's, downgraded U.S. debt after that acrimonious episode; now, Moody's is threatening to do so as well. ... The message from the analysts at Moody's and S&P is that lawmakers can't keep putting off the day of reckoning. Moody's set a reasonable condition for avoiding a downgrade: adopting policies that stabilize, then reduce the debt as a percentage of the U.S. economy over the next several years. ... ... It means bringing the two polarized and recalcitrant sides together in a compromise, something Washington's current occupants have been singularly unable to do. They're running out of time to learn how. Online: ___ Sept. 11 Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader on "Romneycare": Most Americans tell pollsters they oppose the Affordable Care Act while strongly supporting individual pieces of what's been dubbed "Obamacare." Republican Mitt Romney apparently falls into this category, or at least has been reading the polls. Romney has been promising to repeal the health care reform law on Day 1 if he is elected president. But during an interview on Meet the Press recently he tempered his opposition. "I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm going to put in place," Romney said. "One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like." Romney's campaign quickly backpedaled, so stay tuned for further clarifications. The important point is this: Romney can't pick and choose among the health insurance reforms. He can't guarantee affordable coverage to uninsured people who have pre-existing medical conditions without also enacting the individual mandate, which is the linchpin. Unless everyone, or almost everyone, especially healthy and younger adults, is covered and paying into the system, the popular pieces of reform will be unaffordable to those who need them. ... Tackle the question of how to protect people who don't have employer-provided health insurance, and the answer inevitably leads to universal coverage and an individual mandate. That was the solution in Massachusetts when Romney was governor and signed the health care law that became the model for Obamacare, which raises a hopeful possibility: If they win, Republicans might have no choice but to replace Obamacare with Romneycare. Online: ___ Sept. 10 The Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times on the potential use of armed aerial drones by police in the U.S. Only a few police departments in the country now use unmanned aerial drones under special federal approval, but that is expected to change once the Federal Aviation Administration drafts new rules to open the skies to commercial use of drones. Law enforcement agencies primarily use the smaller versions of the Predator drones flown in war zones in surveillance, for search-and-rescue missions, to monitor traffic and even help with crowd control. While their use is now primarily for observation, there is concern that one day deadly weapons could be added to domestic drones. Some of them can be equipped with rubber bullets, laser projectiles and tear gas. However, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has come out against arming drones in a set of recommendations on how they should be used. ... The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the suggestions but thought privacy protections should be "put into law, not merely promulgated by the police themselves." Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has introduced legislation that would require police to obtain a warrant before all uses except when a drone is used to patrol the border, in the threat of a terrorist attack or when life is threatened. There is too great a risk of misuse or deadly error by a drone operator sitting at a desk misreading a volatile situation in deciding whether to bomb unruly demonstrators with tear gas or open fire with a barrage of bullets. Limits have to be imposed on use of the weapons. Online: ___ Sept. 7 The News Herald, Panama City, Fla., on political convention financials: There once was a time when political conventions were vital to conducting American democracy. There also once was a time when horse-drawn carriages were essential to travel long distances. Today, the national conventions are, from a practical standpoint, obsolete and as anachronistic as the straw hats many delegates wear. And so are the taxpayer subsidies they feed on. The Democratic and Republican parties received a total of $136 million in federal funding for their recently concluded conventions. Congress appropriated $100 million — $50 million for each convention — to cover the cost of security (which has been over the top at both sites). Each party also received public grants of $18,248,300 for their conventions, funded through the Presidential Election Campaign Checkoff. What did Joe and Joanna Taxpayer receive? Heavily scripted affairs of partisan speeches full of emotional appeals and gilded lilies, and little nutritional content. Ironically, they draw lots of media coverage — 15,000 or more reporters, pundits and other related employees — but produce so little real news. ... It's not like politics is starving for money. Both major parties are awash in billions of special-interest dollars, more of which could be used to underwrite the conventions. Indeed, the use of tax dollars frees up private donations that the parties can spend elsewhere on non-convention politicking. Why should the public do them a favor? Defenders of the tax subsidy argue that conventions are a good investment in the democratic process. But do we really need to publicly fund political circuses to get voters involved in the election? In the modern media age, the parties don't need conventions to get their messages out. ... If Washington is to tighten its belt, one of the first notches to be punched should be ending the convention subsidies. Online: ___ Sept. 8 The Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal on Kosovo independence: In violent spasms through the 1990s, the country forged together as Yugoslavia broke apart, its component republics reasserting their independence following vicious ethnic conflicts. Today, another section of the Balkans, the province of Kosovo, emerges out of the chaos of the '90s as Europe's newest independent country.... The transition from a province under U.N. protection to independence is remarkable progress, hard won in a restive region where the long presence of ethnic conflict continues to pose enormous political challenges. Landlocked in an area about half the size of Vermont and with a population of less than 2 million, Kosovo is engaged in the difficult and uncertain task of creating a viable, modern democracy that rises above its recent violent past and ethnic and religious divisions.... Kosovo's survival was the result of aggressive direct intervention by the United States and NATO allies followed by years of U.N. protection and oversight. But too often there is little political will to take on the financial and personnel responsibility to intervene in civil conflicts in sovereign states — whether it is for concerted international action to stop genocide in Darfur or massacres in Libya or Syria. Online: ___ Sept. 9 The Grand Island (Neb.) Independent on the Keystone XL pipeline: When the Trans-Alaska pipeline was first proposed in 1970 the environmental movement launched an all-out effort to stop it based on claims that the heated oil would destroy the permafrost, earthquakes would rupture the pipeline, massive oil leaks would permanently scar the tundra, contaminate the hundreds of pristine streams and rivers in the path of the pipeline and halt the annual migration of the Porcupine caribou herd. None of those prophecies came to pass. The Trans-Alaska pipeline stands as the most economically successful, socially beneficial, and environmentally-sound energy development venture ever undertaken by our nation. ... Our energy revolution can be a unifying force for the nation. We can be good stewards of the earth while relying on our own vast reserves of natural resources. We are building energy efficient engines and power plants. We are developing clean and alternative energy solutions while becoming better energy consumers and conservers. Wind, solar, biomass, nuclear, coal, natural gas and hydro all have place in the future. ... The only thing holding our great nation back is political paralysis. President Barack Obama made promises to labor and to the environmental movement. He can't keep both. His green jobs promise cannot be fulfilled in a weak economy. Many thousands of union and non-union jobs have not materialized due to energy policy gridlock. The Keystone XL pipeline is as important to the growth of U.S. jobs and energy self-sufficiency today as the Trans-Alaska pipeline was more than 40 years ago. Obama signed off on the southern link of the Keystone XL pipeline project and it is now under construction. The routing issue of the pipeline in Nebraska has been resolved. There is too much at stake for this shovel-ready project to languish any longer. ... Online: ___ Sept. 10 The Denver Post on e-book prices: Consumers are the big winners — at least in the short term — from a settlement approved recently between three major publishers and the Justice Department, which accused the companies of illegal collusion in pricing digital books. The Justice Department argued that the publishers and Apple Inc. had colluded in 2010 to hike the price of e-books — with the result that many volumes that had been available for $9.99 at Amazon saw their price rise by several dollars. The settlement orders the publishers to end their contracts with Apple and allow retailers to set their own prices for e-books instead of having the publishers stipulate the prices in advance. Presumably, this action should result in price reductions on many digital books. And that's obviously good news for e-book buyers. We say this even though we recognize that an impressive number of serious critics have stepped forward in recent months — everyone from The New York Times' David Carr to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Wayne Crews — to take issue with the government's decision to go after the publishers and Apple in the first place. Those critics have made a variety of arguments. However, the main one seems to be that at one point prior to the publishers' deal with Apple, Amazon controlled 90 percent of the e-book market and might regain a similar monopoly by selling digital books at a loss to strengthen its Kindle platform. In the long run, they argue, this would not be good for consumers, authors or publishers. Indeed, Apple and two other publishers, Macmillan and Penguin, rejected the settlement and will defend their actions at a trial next year. They insist that they did nothing wrong and that the "agency model" they adopted for setting the price of books has a long and legal pedigree. It will be interesting to see how those arguments hold up at trial. ... Online: ___ Sept. 10 Chicago Sun-Times on the fundamental difference between Obama and Romney: Should the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes to help fix a country that is in desperate need of fixing? President Barack Obama said as much recently in a TV interview. He said he would be "more than happy to work with the Republicans" to fix the big problems that threaten the nation with financial ruin, such as the unsustainable growth of Medicare costs and the swelling national deficit, if they would only drop their opposition to raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That's it. That's the whole ballgame. Yes, the president said, "some adjustments" have to be made to Medicare and Medicaid — code words for saying that middle-class and poor Americans will have to take a hit in all sorts of ways to balance the budget — but it is unconscionable to do so without first asking more of the wealthiest Americans. Or is every last dollar in the pocket of a billionaire "jobs creator" (talk about Orwellian language games) more precious than a dollar in the purse of an elderly Medicare recipient who can barely pay her rent? For the last four years, that rigidity has made bipartisan cooperation and compromise impossible. Republican extremists committed to a kill-the-beast assault on government have thrown fairness to wind. ... Obama has proposed increasing taxes on the wealthy to roughly the levels they were during the Clinton Administration, an era of prosperity and balanced budgets. In the meantime, Mitt Romney continues to double down on a tax-and-spending plan that doesn't add up. An independent analysis says he simply can't end enough tax deductions and close enough loopholes to make up for the lost income from a promised 20 percent tax cut for all Americans. ... But should the wealthy pay more in taxes as part of any fair deficit-reduction plan? That's the question of the moment. Romney says no, but won't say who's going to feel the pain instead. Online: ___ Sept. 10 The Jerusalem Post on the Middle East context of refugee: Palestinians are the first people to come to mind when the word "refugee" is uttered in a Middle East context. And Palestinians have paid dearly to reinforce this misconception. Largely dispossessed by their fellow Arabs, Palestinians have lived as second-class citizens in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere in the region. Palestinians' dismal treatment by their Arab brethren is undoubtedly due in part to strongly held prejudices and exclusionary nationalist loyalties. But the perpetuation of the Palestinian "refugee" problem has also served as a means of undermining the legitimacy of Israel, as if it was the Jewish state — not extremist, uncompromising and sorrowfully incompetent Palestinian leadership — which was responsible for the flight of Palestinians from Palestine after the failed attempt to violently snuff out the State of Israel at conception. In reality, however, there was at least one additional population movement in the region around the same time. Since the 1948 War of Independence, during which the fledgling Jewish state successfully repulsed both Palestinian militias and the combined armies of the neighboring Arab states, about 850,000 Jews were displaced from Arab countries — more than about 700,000 Palestinians estimated to have left Palestine in the wake of the war. ... In the past, Israel has balked at raising the topic of Jewish refugees. ... But the time has come to raise consciousness... recognition of certain historical facts and the scrapping of distorted narratives can be a form of therapy, a way of attaining true reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. Only when the Palestinian people acknowledge their own and the Arab nations' complicity in their own displacement, as well as the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, will true, lasting peace be attainable. Online: ___ Sept. 10 The Telegraph, London, on Afghanistan: The length of the campaign in Afghanistan is a vivid measure of its cost. When British soldiers finally withdraw at the end of 2014, the fighting will have lasted for 13 years, making it the longest foreign conflict this country has waged since the days of Napoleon. After so much toil and sacrifice, the government owes it to the nation to acknowledge some harsh realities. No one doubts the achievement of our forces, along with their American and coalition allies. Until 2001, Afghanistan served as the global headquarters of al-Qaeda and the location for training camps turning out thousands of terrorists. All that has come to an end, with the camps razed and al-Qaeda eliminated as a functioning force, at least within Afghanistan's borders. Our soldiers can take pride in their part in removing a threat to the security of the West. Along the way, they have underwritten the birth of an elected government in Kabul and allowed at least three million girls to return to the schools from which the Taliban excluded them. It should never be forgotten that fighters loyal to this vicious movement still burn down classrooms, and cast acid in the faces of girls who want nothing more than an education. That makes it harder still to acknowledge that there will be no outright military victory over the Taliban. Even the finest counter-insurgency force could not eliminate a movement so deeply rooted among the Pashtuns of southern and eastern Afghanistan. So a negotiated settlement is inevitable — and the Taliban will inevitably play a part. ... The Prime Minister should start preparing the public for the unpalatable agreement that will have to be struck by 2014. The men we fought for 13 years are likely to have real political power. The best we can hope for is that Afghanistan will be governable, and that the country will no longer be a threat to the West. Online: __ Sept. 9 The Globe and Mail, Toronto, on Canada-Iran diplomacy: The decision to sever diplomatic relations with Iran marks a retreat from the enlightened influence Canada can have in the world. Everything that Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has said about Iran is true. The country has, under its ruling mullahcracy, descended into something resembling a rogue state. But the government's decision is still baffling. Baird did not reveal a specific incident, or threat, to explain the timing of the move, though he hinted that embassy officers could be in danger. If there were a specific, verified threat, then a temporary closure of the embassy may be justified. But Canadian diplomats serve in dangerous posts in many places in the world, and Canada has gone much further than a temporary closing. It has expelled Iranian diplomats and ended diplomatic ties. Instead of sharing any threats, Baird provided a summary of Iran's various international and domestic crimes and misdemeanors: its support for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, its nuclear program, its support for organizations Ottawa considers terrorist groups, its human-rights record and of course, its threats against Israel. This latter concern elicited speculation that Canada acted because an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear capability is imminent, and this country is seen as a supporter of Israel. Baird even mentioned the 1979 hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, which one might have thought was a very good argument against closing the embassy. Imagine if Ken Taylor and Canadian diplomats had been withdrawn during that tumultuous period, and were not there to help shield some American diplomats from the fanatics. ... It is precisely because it is a threat to its own people and those in other countries that Canada should continue to talk with Iran and not retreat from its international responsibilities. Online: http://www.theglobeandmail.com ___ Sept. 12 China Daily, Beijing, on China-Japan diplomacy: Japan has slammed the door on diplomacy by "nationalizing" Chinese territory. Yet, the country has no legal grounds for taking control of the Diaoyu Islands and, for that reason, simply cannot deprive China of its sovereignty over them. It's high time that China resort to legal methods in these disputes. International jurisprudential evidence is irrefutable in its proof that China has sovereignty over the islands. The Diaoyu Islands issue was settled after World War II. The United States has nonetheless managed to turn it into a complicated dispute. ... Japan took the Liu Chiu Islands, which Japan calls Okinawa, by force from China in 1874, when the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) was at war with several countries. The Diaoyu Islands, though, remained under the administration of Taiwan. Following China's defeat in the Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95, the Qing government ceded Taiwan, including its subsidiary islands, to Japan. That was reversed by the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, which resulted in Taiwan being returned to China in 1945 at the end of World War II. The Japanese government accepted the terms of these documents, including one saying "that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa (as Taiwan was called before 1945), the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China". ... Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, which was signed in 1951 by Japan and the allied powers, states: "Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Paracels." Article 4 of a separate peace treaty signed in 1952 by Japan and the Republic of China declared that all agreements made between Japan and China before 1941 were null and void. ... Given the rampant rightist tendency seen in Japanese politics and the potential dangers Japan poses to its neighbors and the region at large, there is an imperative need to set the record straight. Online:
Editorial Roundup: Excerpts From Recent Editorials
— Sep. 13 8:49 AM EDT
Comments