Editorial Roundup: Excerpts from recent editorials By Associated Press…

Editorial Roundup: Excerpts from recent editorials
By Associated Press

Published: 20:32 BST, 13 April 2016 | Updated: 20:32 BST, 13 April 2016









e-mail



Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:

____

April 12

The Toronto Star on Canada's campaign funding laws:

Premier Kathleen Wynne deserves praise for the content of a sweeping reform package aimed at finally cleaning up Ontario's fetid political fundraising. But the way she has gone about it leaves much to be desired.

It's almost as if she set out to insult the opposition, or at least one-up them, while bringing in long-overdue change. That's a shame. If any issue warrants a shared, non-partisan approach it's fixing the way political parties raise money to fund election campaigns.

The reforms Wynne announced on Monday appear to go a long way in correcting a scandalously loose system that has Ontario trailing other jurisdictions when it comes to ethical fundraising. Her proposed changes include:

A ban on corporate and union donations to political parties, starting on Jan. 1. The federal level, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, and the City of Toronto already have such a ban.

A firm spending limit on political advertising done by third-party interest groups, such as business organizations and the union-funded Working Families coalition.

A dramatic cut to the maximum allowable donation made by an individual from nearly $10,000 down to $1,525, as it is at the federal level.

Closing a loophole that allows political parties to rake in contributions far beyond even existing limits during byelections.

Possibly giving political parties a publicly-funded subsidy to help them transition into the brave new world of ethical fundraising.

When the federal level introduced similar reforms it allowed a temporary $2 per-vote subsidy for each major party, based on the number of ballots won in the previous election. It seems a reasonable way to proceed provided this taxpayer-funded financial crutch doesn't continue for an undue time.

These are all credible reforms but — make no mistake — Wynne didn't arrive at them through some altruistic dedication to doing the right thing. On the contrary, she repeatedly defended the status quo until forced to take action by damning revelations including an investigation by the Star's Martin Regg Cohn. He found cabinet ministers were being assigned aggressive fundraising goals, as high as $500,000, to be met by attracting donations from the very sectors they were supposed to be overseeing.

Wynne had to act in the face of that outrageous conflict of interest. To her credit, she has put forward a strong agenda. But she could have handled the rollout better.

Because changes to political fundraising affect all parties, the premier had quite rightly pledged to meet with Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown and New Democratic Party Leader Andrea Horwath to discuss possible improvements. That meeting took place Monday.

But just moments after it ended, Wynne issued a formal 2,000-word statement detailing the coming reforms — a document she had written before meeting the other leaders. That was a snub, to say the least. By waiting as little as one day before making her plans known Wynne could have claimed she had at least considered opposition concerns. But even that minor a concession proved too much.

Inevitably, Brown and Horwath denounced Wynne's consultation as a sham; and they had a point.

While the changes are broadly welcome, details remain to be worked out. It's not too late for Wynne to show some good faith by putting her changes before a special "select" committee of the legislature to canvass for input. As Cohn notes, parties are more equally represented in such a format and it traditionally encourages public participation and enduring agreements.

That's what this process needs. Wynne has put forward a promising agenda, but it is best cocaine dealer in US delivered though consultation and co-operation, not bulldozing.

Online: website

____

April 8

The Los Angeles Times on the DEA's classification of marijuana:

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 drug, which means it has no medicinal value and is highly addictive. But the Drug Enforcement Administration is, once again, considering moving it to a less restrictive category that better reflects both its danger and the undeniable facts on the ground — that nearly half the states in the nation allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes, and several allow it to be used recreationally. The DEA told lawmakers that it intends to make a decision by July.

The schedule 1 designation for marijuana has been a ludicrously restrictive classification since it was imposed in 1970, lumping cannabis in with heroin and LSD. The DEA has twice considered and rejected requests to reclassify the drug over the last two decades. The last time was in 2011. Frankly, a change is long overdue.

The DEA's reluctance in the past to reclassify the drug has hindered research that could shed light on the uses (or dangers) of marijuana as a medicine, and could help guide smarter marijuana policies in general. Because it is a Schedule 1 drug, researchers interested in studying its health effects have faced bureaucratic hurdles and strict controls, including limited legal access to the drug. Last year, just eight researchers received marijuana for medical study from the one government-sanctioned cannabis farm in the country. So, the federal government has effectively suppressed research on marijuana, and then authorities argue there are not enough long-term studies of the medicinal value and health risks of marijuana use to justify reclassifying it.

The lack of research hasn't stopped 23 states from allowing the use of the drug for pain relief and other medical purposes. But it has denied doctors and patients important information about the risks or benefits.

Nor has the Schedule 1 classification stopped voters in four states from legalizing marijuana for adult use. Yet the DEA still treats marijuana as if it's as addictive as heroin and more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine, which are listed as schedule 2 drugs.

It's heartening that the federal government is reconsidering this misguided policy. The easiest, most sensible move would be for the DEA to reclassify marijuana so that it's treated as a prescription drug, complete with Food and Drug Administration oversight. The harder, but inevitable question as more states consider legalizing recreational use is whether federal authorities and lawmakers should remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act altogether so states can choose whether to regulate marijuana for adult consumption without running afoul of federal law.

Online: website

____

April 11

The Dallas Morning News on the Panama Papers:

Americans' faith in their financial system has rarely been so low. Presidential candidates in both parties, from Sen. Ted Cruz on the right to Sen. Bernie Sanders on the left, argue that our politicians are bought by Wall Street and that regulators are captured by the industries they oversee.

Eight years after the global financial crisis, politicians are tapping into deep skepticism among Americans about the way money flows here and around the world. The skepticism has had impact beyond the campaigns: It has helped stall, for instance, important trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership and stoked opposition to the Export-Import Bank.

Comes now one more blow. About 11.5 million documents taken from a single Panamanian law firm reveal the way the global elite — from world leaders to ordinary rich folks — have taken advantage on a massive scale of laws that permit secretive and often suspicious transactions to remain covert and nearly untraceable.

Already, Iceland's prime minster has resigned. Spanish authorities are looking into possible tax violations by an offshore firm revealed to be owned by the aunt of the reigning Spanish king.

So far, Americans have not been named among the dozen or so world leaders found to have had hidden interests in off-shore companies. But USA Today has reported that the documents do reveal that the law firm in Panama has helped create more than 1,100 offshore firms in America in the past 15 years, mostly in Nevada and Wyoming. Indeed, Nevada is now one of the world's 10 busiest tax havens, on a list that includes British Virgin Islands, the Bahamas and Samoa.

We should be clear: Establishing a company in Nevada, even if its owners, employees, and primary business functions all are located in another country, isn't usually illegal. It's legal in the same way that major American corporations have in recent years kept profits from overseas sales parked in offshore accounts in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

But as President Barack Obama told reporters last week. "The problem is that a lot of this stuff is legal, not illegal."

The U.S. Treasury Department is on the cusp of announcing another round of rules that will require banks to know who their customers are, and what their business is. That's a start. A simpler tax code — with fewer incentives to shelter ownership — is another.

In the meantime, companies — and the law firms and accountants and banks that help them — that continue to use such tactics to avoid taxes and shield from scrutiny both their owners and their operations must cop to their role in furthering the mistrust ordinary Americans have for their financial system.

Online: website

____

April 13

The Boston Herald on House Speaker Paul Ryan's decision not to run for president:

So House Speaker Paul Ryan is officially out of the White Knight line-up.

The speaker categorically ruled himself out of contention for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination yesterday, leaving no wiggle room — even in the hearts and minds of the most ardent fans who had hoped he would somehow be the man to unite a fractured party. And more to the point that he would be the kind of smart, respected and likeable candidate who could actually win a general election.

Ryan's latest comments came on the same day an Associated Press-GfK poll showed most voters less than thrilled with their current choices. Among all registered voters, 63 percent said they would not vote for Republican front runner Donald Trump, and half said the same about Democrat Hillary Clinton.

AP accurately characterized voter attitudes as rather "meh."

As the probability has grown of a contested GOP convention and as party insiders have grown increasingly worried about losing congressional seats, the need for a Plan B became obvious. Ryan, who has his hands full with a House membership almost as fractious as the rest of the party, has engaged in his own high-profile above-the-fray battle plan.

In a speech last month to House interns he said, "Politics can be a battle of ideas, not insults. It can be about solutions. It can be about making a difference. It can be about always striving to do better."

It was a speech many interpreted as the start of a campaign.

Yesterday Ryan said, "I want to put this to rest once and for all. ... I do not want nor will I accept the nomination of our party. ... Count me out."

Then he added, "I simply believe that if you want to be the nominee — to be the president — you should actually run for it."

Many GOP hearts are heavy today. But Ryan's job will be preserving his party's House majority — a job made infinitely more difficult by turmoil at the top of the ticket.

Online: website

____

April 12

The New York Times on nuclear weapons:

What Secretary of State John Kerry called his "gut wrenching" visit to the Hiroshima war memorial on Monday served several purposes. As the highest-ranking official in an American administration ever to visit the site, he paid respects to the victims of one of the most devastating acts of World War II and reflected on how Japan and the United States have forged a strong alliance over the past 70 years. He also emphasized that "war must never be the first resort" and urged a continued push for a world free from nuclear weapons.

For years, top American officials did not visit the memorial because of sensitivities over the nuclear attacks by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that killed 200,000 people, mostly civilians. Now that Mr. Kerry has paved the way, there should be nothing keeping President Obama from becoming the first American president to stop at Hiroshima when he travels to Japan next month for a meeting of the Group of 7 leaders. But he should be prepared to offer some tangible new initiative to keep alive his flagging vision of a nuclear-free world.

Mr. Obama created big expectations in his first term when he endorsed the ambitious goal of a world without nuclear weapons. It is necessary to "ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change," he said in a speech in Prague in 2009. He has achieved some important measures, most notably the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which has significantly curbed Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon, and the 2010 New Start treaty mandating cuts in the number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the United States and Russia to 1,550 warheads each.

More progress, however, has been stymied in part because Russia, led by an increasingly aggressive Vladimir Putin, has thwarted talks on further nuclear arms reductions. The Republican-led Senate has refused to consider ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And Pakistan has blocked international negotiations on a treaty banning fissile material production.

But Mr. Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 largely because of his nuclear agenda, has failed to take advantage of opportunities for bolder action. He has not gotten China, India and Pakistan into talks aimed at halting the growth of their nuclear arsenals, or taken American nuclear weapons off alert. His support for a $1 trillion program to replace America's aging nuclear weapons severely undercuts his lofty words about a "world without nuclear weapons."

Mr. Obama still has time to promote his antinuclear legacy with small but doable advances. He should cancel the new air-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missile. He should work to persuade the United Nations Security Council to endorse the nuclear test moratorium that all countries but North Korea observe, even though the test ban treaty has never formally taken effect, and push to have the United Nations organization that monitors testing be made permanent. If President Obama does visit Hiroshima, he needs to make it count.

Online: website

____

April 12

The Washington Post on the rising price of stamps:

We usually do not complain when a commonly used consumer item gets cheaper, but first-class postage presents a bit of a special case. The sudden 2-cent drop in price, from 49 cents to 47 cents, on Sunday, makes a mockery of the "Forever" label on the stamps many people bought at the higher price, thinking their indefinite validity would hedge against future price hikes. Little did they know!

More important for the stability of the already distressed U.S. Postal Service, the price cut represents a financial blow, estimated at $2 billion per year. Stamps went up to 49 cents in January 2014, pursuant to a Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) ruling intended to help the Postal Service recover from the Great Recession. However, the increase was considered "exigent" and thus temporary — large-scale postal customers had lobbied heavily against it — and it could be made permanent only by an act of Congress. A bill to do that, as well as relieve some of USPS's structural health care cost burden and change its pricing system, is pending in a Senate committee.

On a deeper level, this setback to the Postal Service is a vivid reminder of the institutional dysfunction that led to its predicament. USPS, we are often told, is supposed to run like a business. How many businesses have to go through a federal commission, or Congress, for permission to set prices on their bread-and-butter product, which is what first-class mail is for the Postal Service? Tied down like Gulliver by regulators and congressional barons, relentlessly lobbied by everyone from the greeting card industry to rural newspapers, contractually hamstrung by powerful labor unions, the Postal Service's management lacks the autonomy necessary to run the system efficiently. It is a classic case of responsibility without authority.

Unable to do much of anything else, USPS has asked the regulatory commission to clarify how broad its upcoming mandatory review of the pricing system will be. The obvious implication is that USPS needs a complete overhaul if it is to survive. As Postmaster General Megan J. Brennan said in February, the current system "is unworkable and should be replaced with a system that provides greater pricing flexibility and better reflects the economic challenges facing the Postal Service." We wish we could be more optimistic about the chances that this eminently sensible appeal will bear fruit.

Online: website Roundup: Excerpts from recent editorials