“What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically?” wrote columnist and best-selling author Thomas Friedman.
He also said: “We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese. . . . We can’t do this anymore.”
In terms of the economy, congressional earmarks are a nonissue. But if President Obama is unhappy about the billions of dollars of pet projects within the holdover spending bill before the Senate, he should keep his campaign promise by picking an earmarks fight with Democrats and Republicans now rather than wait until the 2010 budget. As Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said last week of the pork projects, “They are wasteful. They should not be funded.” Obama could either veto the whole bill or, as Bruce Reed suggested on Slate, “rescind certain items and pressure Congress to vote on whether to keep them.”
Georgetown University law professor Rosa Brooks notes on today’s Opinion pages how the Bush administration’s legal memos authorizing torture and other presidential powers were “outrageously bad.” As a result, there is considerable debate in legal circles about what, if anything, should happen to the authors of those memos. The Obama administration has resisted calls for a criminal investigation of John Yoo (in photo) and other attorneys who formerly worked at the Office of Legal Counsel. Congress is conducting its own inquiry. Other options include punishment by state bar associations. Even if the Bush attorneys escape these actions, they may be pursued by some European countries that have laws against torture. “I think people like Yoo will be taking their chances if they want to go to Europe for a very long time,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
A proposal to end state school bond aid was so misguided and patently unfair that the Kansas Senate didn’t even bother holding a hearing. Yet for some reason, state Rep. Joe McLeland (in photo), R-Wichita, plans to take up the matter in an Education Budget Committee hearing today. House Bill 2280 would eliminate state principal and interest aid for any bonds issued after the effective date of the law change. That means school districts such as Wichita that approved bonds but haven’t issued them yet wouldn’t get all their promised aid. If that happened, local taxpayers would see their taxes go higher than the amount they counted on when they approved the bond issues. How is that fair, and how is that not a tax increase? Breaking the state’s contract likely would also result in lawsuits and might hurt the state’s credit rating. It’s no wonder why the Senate quickly abandoned this bad idea. The House should do likewise.