Las Vegas Review-Journal (Sunday)
Editorial Roundup
Recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:
The Washington Post on congressional stock-trading (Sept. 26):
It is a long-running scandal that members of Congress are allowed to trade individual stocks. They have access to privileged information. They oversee a sprawling web of federal policy. Their actions can have direct effects on the companies in which they have stakes. The potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest is enormous.
Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-calif., has not always favored cracking down on lawmaker stock-trading. “It’s a free-market economy,” she said last year, dismissing concerns. Lately, she has changed her stance, indicating that a stock-trading bill from Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-calif., will make it to the House floor. That’s good. The question is whether the speaker will do what’s necessary to get it over the finish line.
Lofgren sent a letter to colleagues last week laying out a framework for a bill that would restrict public officials from exploiting their positions for personal gain: banning them as well as their spouses and dependent children from dealing in stocks, securities, commodities, futures, cryptocurrencies and similar investments, and mandating that they either divest existing assets or put them in a qualified blind trust. Those officials would still be able to hold diversified funds as well as government bonds, on the theory that dealing in those sorts of investments doesn’t present the same potential for abuse. Disclosure requirements would also become more detailed, and the penalties for noncompliance more severe.
The proposal Lofgren described is appealing. But good-government advocates are nevertheless wary. Democratic congressional leaders have not allowed votes this year on multiple bipartisan bills written along similar lines, which hardly builds confidence that they are committed to reform. Timing is now an issue: Lawmakers leave Capitol Hill on Friday and will not return until after the midterm elections, so any knotty disputes will need fast untangling if the Lofgren bill is to pass.
The proposal’s prospects are made even murkier by the pressure to apply the bill’s restrictions to Supreme Court justices along with members of Congress. This is a guaranteed nonstarter for Senate Republicans, at least some of whom would need to support the bill for it to advance. Otherwise, the bill might pass the lower chamber, handing Pelosi a victory and a talking point, but perish in the upper one.
The speaker shouldn’t allow that to happen. If Lofgren and her allies believe their bill is better than those already introduced, they should seize the opportunity to fix their own branch and leave the others for separate legislation. Some reform is better than none.
A recent New York Times report on congressional conflicts of interest revealed that nearly one-fifth of lawmakers bought or sold assets in industries possibly affected by their work. Some of the examples appear to show impropriety; the majority likely show only the appearance of it. But both are corrosive to citizens’ faith in good government. In bringing a viable bill quickly to the floor, House Democrats would help restore public faith — by holding themselves to account on stock-trading, and by doing what they said they would.
The Wall Street Journal on the Jones Act (Sept. 27):
Thousands of Americans in Puerto Rico are without power after Hurricane Fiona roared through last week. Idling off the island’s coast is a ship that reportedly carries 300,000 barrels of diesel fuel from Texas. Yet unloading that fuel is illegal without a Jones Act waiver, which the Biden administration hasn’t granted.
The Jones Act, also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, is protectionism at its worst. The law says waterborne cargo between U.S. points must be carried by ships that are primarily built, owned and crewed by Americans. This raises shipping prices, while shifting cargo to trucks, which are less efficient and worse for the environment. The law also explains why wintry Boston imports Russian liquefied natural gas.
The Jones Act is particularly hard on areas like Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Pedro Pierluisi, the Democratic governor of Puerto Rico, has asked Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to expedite a waiver. The ship carrying diesel was diverted to Puerto Rico at the request of a wholesaler. Its general manager told CBS that, given the damage wrought by the hurricane, the company asked its supplier in good faith “to see if there was a cargo in the vicinity of the island that could come earlier.”
The Trump administration issued a Jones Act waiver after Hurricane Maria in 2017. But Congress later tightened the requirements. Then the defense secretary could obtain a waiver if it was broadly “in the interest of national defense.” Now that kind of waiver must “address an immediate adverse effect on military operations.”
The Department of Homeland Security can approve a more limited waiver if the feds certify “the non-availability of qualified United States flag capacity to meet national defense requirements.” Does this apply today? After the Colonial Pipeline shut down last year, Mayorkas approved a waiver for fuel shipments to the East Coast, which he said was “in the interest of national defense.”
Puerto Rico is the home of Fort Buchanan, the U.S. Army’s “Sentinel of the Caribbean,” so perhaps there’s an argument that it harms national defense if the island is in chaos. Federal officials are anonymously telling the press that they’re unsure whether a waiver for Puerto Rico would be legal. Yet it’s hard not to wonder if President Joe Biden is putting maritime unions above hurricane aid. Four months ago, he pledged “unwavering support” for the Jones Act.
Several members of Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-cortez, D-N.Y., are calling on Mayorkas to give Puerto Rico some type of waiver. Maybe they should try to convince their Democratic colleagues to exempt the island for good — or better yet, kill the Jones Act entirely.
The Joplin (Mo.) Globe wants more done to protect night skies (Sept. 28):
It was a rare event this week, Jupiter in opposition. Planets look their biggest and brightest in opposition.
But beyond that, Earth and Jupiter are the closest they have been in nearly 60 years, and the two won’t be this close again until 2129. Officially, the distance was 367 million miles; Jupiter at its farthest is nearly twice that distance.
Fortunately, we get to see it. Even gazing at Jupiter with a decent pair of binoculars on Monday night revealed at least four of its moons. Even a small telescope, experts said, will pick up the planet’s giant red storm, which is larger than the planet Earth.
It is a rare sight, made even more appreciable by the fact that so much of the night sky has been lost to light pollution.
According to the International Dark-sky Association: “Less than 100 years ago, everyone could look up and see a spectacular starry night sky. Now, millions of children across the globe will never experience the Milky Way where they live.”
Vincent van Gogh painted his “Starry Night” in France in 1889, the association noted, and then said: “Now, the Milky Way can no longer be seen from there. If he were alive today, would he still be inspired to paint ‘Starry Night?’ ”
The Association also cites the “World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness,” which reports: “80% of the world’s population lives under skyglow. In the United States and Europe, 99% of the public can’t experience a natural night!”
(Skyglow is the brightening of the night sky caused by artificial lighting.)
It’s more than just the loss of the night sky at risk. The natural world evolved to the rhythms of day and night, and artificial light disrupts that. Artificial light lures sea turtles away from the sea and toward the cities after they hatch; light pollution affects migratory and breeding patterns in animals.
The group has been urging homeowners and cities to replace outdoor lighting that is “inefficient, overly bright, poorly targeted, improperly shielded, and, in many cases, completely unnecessary.” Sometimes it is as simple as keeping blinds and curtains closed at night.
You can learn a lot more about steps you can take to protect the night sky views, and steps you can encourage your communities to take, at darksky.org.
The Guardian on Italy’s election (Sept. 26):
The radical right’s clear victory in Italy’s election is a historic and disturbing moment in European politics. Formed 10 years ago, and with roots in a formerly fringe neo-fascist tradition, Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party will dominate the most right-wing administration to govern the country in the postwar period. The third-largest economy in the eurozone and a founding member of the European Union, Italy has now become a beacon and a model for nationalist, authoritarian forces across the continent.
Throughout the election campaign, Meloni has been at pains to distance herself and her party from historical links to the Italian Social Movement (MSI), set up by supporters of Benito Mussolini after the war. According to Italy’s next prime minister, the far right has been on “a journey,” and should now be considered a national conservative party comparable to the British Conservative party. But a more relevant benchmark is her close ally Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz in Hungary, which in power has developed a form of soft autocracy which Orbán describes as “illiberal democracy.”
As has happened in Hungary, Meloni’s aggressive social conservatism is likely to make Italy a more hostile place for migrants, LGBT people and women seeking to exercise reproductive rights guaranteed by the constitution after the abortion referendum in 1978. Like Hungary’s prime minister, Meloni has channeled “great replacement” theory, pledging to defend Italy’s Christian identity by cracking down on immigration and upping Italy’s low birthrate. Her party’s virulent opposition to gay adoption and surrogacy was signaled by campaign criticism of a Peppa Pig cartoon broadcast on a state channel, in which a plotline featured same-sex parents.
The prosecution of such culture wars is likely to provide red meat for Meloni’s supporters, as she takes a more cautious approach in initial dealings with the EU. Facing a brutal economic winter, Italy cannot afford to do without 200 billion euros’ worth of promised EU COVID recovery fund money. This comes with strings attached, as would any future assistance from the European Central Bank, should markets begin to bet against Italy’s ability to service its huge national debt. On Russia’s war in Ukraine, Meloni has pledged ongoing support for NATO and the EU’S sanctions regime, but may encounter opposition from her more Putin-friendly coalition partners, Matteo Salvini and Silvio Berlusconi.
The bigger picture, for those committed to the internationalism and liberal democratic values forged by the EU since World War II, is a depressing one. Among the first to congratulate Meloni on her victory was Marine Le Pen, who suggested that “the whole of Europe is waking up, after Poland, Hungary, Sweden and now Italy.” For years, Meloni has been assiduous in building up far-right alliances. Profiting from disastrous divisions on the center-left and popular frustration with established parties, she is now able to place Italy — a major Western democracy — at the head of forces favorable to rolling back European integration in the name of a reactionary nationalism and identity politics. Speaking before the election, Romano Prodi, the former center-left prime minister and ex-president of the European Commission, warned of the dangers for the European idea if national laws were ever allowed to take precedence over EU law. That is largely where Le Pen, Orbán and Meloni would like to end up. The triumph of Meloni has immeasurably helped their cause.
The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkesbarre, Pa., on the Senate ratifying a climate treaty (Sept. 27):
Though it seems miraculous due to the usual politics underlying climate policy, the Senate on Sept. 21 actually ratified an international treaty to eliminate an entire class of climate-warming chemicals. In doing so, it might have provided a model of how to implement other sound climate policies.
The treaty, part of the Montreal Protocol to mitigate climate change, will result in the global phaseout of hydrofluorocarbons, which have been used heavily since the 1900s in all types of refrigeration. They were developed to replace chlorofluorocarbons, which had been destroying the ozone layer high in Earth’s atmosphere that protects the planet from ultraviolet radiation.
Subsequent research discovered that the replacement hydrofluorocarbons are highly efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere, but that they dissipate relatively quickly compared with long-lasting carbon dioxide. Research underlying the treaty predicts that eliminating them will prevent about a half-degree Celsius global temperature increase, buying some time for other climate-cooling measures.
The Senate’s overwhelmingly bipartisan 69-27 vote made the United States the 137th nation to ratify the treaty, including China, the world’s largest HFC producer.
That bipartisanship offered a key to advancing other climate policy. The treaty was supported not just by scientific research, but by broad elements of the chemical and refrigeration industries, which had used the science to develop new classes of less harmful refrigerants.
So the victory was a triumph for technology as well as for politics. As renewable-fuel and power-generation technology advances, that should accelerate other policies to mitigate global atmospheric warming.
Masslive.com on COVID funding scam allegations (Sept. 28):
When the government opens the financial spigots to support those in need of help, there’ll always be some unscrupulous people who’ll try to jump into the line to get a piece of the action. No one should be surprised when this happens because free money brings out the worst in some.
But sometimes even those who aren’t easily surprised can find the degree of apparent chicanery shocking. And so it was last week, when the Justice Department charged 47 individuals with participating in a scheme to fraudulently obtain some $250 million in funds meant to put food into the hands of needy kids during the coronavirus pandemic.
Officials said people in Minnesota created groups purporting to feed poor kids, making up names and birth dates of those who’d be served, and used their ill-gotten gains to buy luxury cars, jewelry, property and vacations.
So much for “Minnesota nice.” If the facts as laid out by Justice Department officials turn out to be true, the depth and breadth of the scheme is shocking in the extreme.
But one has got to wonder if the thefts alleged could perhaps be merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg, with so much more as yet undiscovered. It would seem a fair bet that with so much relief money sloshing around after the coming of the pandemic in March 2020, the bad actors were crawling out of the woodwork in an effort to scoop up as much undeserved money as was possible.
Officials used the word “brazen” to describe the Minnesota scheme.
When the federal government decided to hand out great amounts of money after the Covid-inspired shutdowns put people out of work and shuttered businesses in the spring of 2020, there were plenty who argued that the cash infusions were an absolute necessity. People were locked down, much economic activity was halted, and no one could reasonably predict what was ahead. But anyone who knew anything about human nature should have understood that there’d be those who’d look to cash in.
Though these charges from the feds are commendable, authorities must not rest on their laurels, patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Rather, they’ve got to continue to look for others who schemed and scammed and sought to profit from the government’s efforts to provide a hand to those who needed it most.