A Danger to Public Health and Welfare
Published: April 18, 2009
In what could be a historic moment in the struggle against climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday confirmed what most people have long suspected but had never been declared as a matter of federal law: carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases constitute a danger to public health and welfare
The formal “endangerment finding” names carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases as pollutants subject to regulation under the federal Clean Air Act. This in turn sets the stage — after a 60-day comment period — for broad new rules touching major sectors of the American economy and profoundly influencing how Americans use and generate energy.
The finding is also likely to accelerate the progress of climate legislation in Congress and will give the United States the credibility it lost in international climate negotiations during the Bush administration. The next round of talks is scheduled for Copenhagen in December.
The decision has been a long time coming. Two years ago, the United States Supreme Court ordered the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases harmed the environment and public health and, if so, to regulate them. Scientists at former President George W. Bush’s E.P.A. largely agreed that greenhouse gases are harmful and should be regulated. In December 2007, the agency forwarded an endangerment finding to the White House, where senior officials promptly suppressed it, refusing even to open the e-mail to which it was attached.
Though they put greater emphasis on the health effects, the E.P.A.’s scientists came to much the same conclusions: that concentrations of greenhouse gases had reached unprecedented levels and had already contributed to increased drought, more frequent and intense heat waves, rising sea levels and damage to water resources, food supplies and ecosystems.
This time, fortunately, the findings were not ignored at the White House. Nor should they be ignored anywhere, most especially in Congress, which is where the solution may ultimately lie.
The E.P.A.’s new administrator, Lisa Jackson, is to be applauded for moving so quickly, and she should move as aggressively as she can to develop whatever rules she thinks are necessary. But as Ms. Jackson is the first to say, legislation addressing climate change would be more effective and inclusive than top-down regulation. It would require broad consensus in Congress and command a wider political consensus going forward. It would also be less vulnerable to legal challenge.
Whether Congress can rise to the challenge this year is an open question. Mr. Obama hopes it can, and so do we. In the House, Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts have crafted an ambitious, many-layered bill that would impose a price on older, dirtier fossil fuels while encouraging newer, cleaner fuels. Though it lacks many important details, the bill provides a plausible framework for the urgent discussion that Congress needs to have and the urgent action it needs to take.
A version of this article appeared in print on April 18, 2009, on page A22 of the New York edition.
================================================== ================================================== ================
Mr. Obama and the Neighborhood
Published: April 18, 2009
President Obama wisely began trying to improve the United States’ extremely sour relations with Latin America this week. He slightly eased the counterproductive embargo on Cuba, and in a visit to Mexico, he vowed to help confront the drug cartels. He also promised leaders at a regional summit a “new day” of practical cooperation in place of former President George W. Bush’s ideologically constricted policies.
Mr. Obama tackled the most neuralgic issue in hemispheric relations when he abandoned longstanding restrictions on the ability of Cuban-Americans to visit family members in Cuba and send them money. Cuba’s people have paid a high enough price for nearly three decades of repression and isolation imposed on them by Fidel Castro and his cronies.
Mr. Obama also allowed telecommunications companies to pursue licensing agreements in Cuba. Such deals are needed to pierce the wall of silence at the heart of the Cuban system by expanding access to cellphones and satellite television.
But these steps do not go far enough. We believe the economic embargo should be completely lifted.
President Raúl Castro responded to Mr. Obama’s overtures with a call for talks about “everything.” We hope the administration follows up and that Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to insist that Havana reciprocate by freeing political prisoners and respecting human rights.
Mr. Obama made a welcome commitment to help President Felipe Calderón of Mexico combat drug trafficking, which has caused a surge of attacks on both sides of the border. He acknowledged that America’s demand for illegal drugs fueled the trade and that its inability to stop the flow of weapons south fed the violence.
But he fell short on what’s required to fix the problem. During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama backed renewal of an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. On Thursday, it was discouraging to hear him suggest that that would be politically impossible now because of opposition from the gun lobby. If he’s that timid, we do not see how he will fulfill his promise to Mr. Calderón to urge the Senate to ratify a long-stalled treaty aimed at curbing illegal arms trafficking.
The Bush administration left so much turmoil and resentment around the world that Mr. Obama might have been tempted to defer dealing with Latin America. We are encouraged that he seems prepared to take on the full plate of issues, including trade, immigration reform, economic recovery, poverty and climate change.
Whether Mr. Obama will win over Washington’s fiercest critics, like President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, is unclear; the two men raised eyebrows on Friday by greeting each other warmly. But we suspect most Latin Americans will be willing to give him a chance. His challenge will be to stay seriously engaged — and to advance an even more effective agenda.
A version of this article appeared in print on April 18, 2009, on page A22 of the New York edition.
================================================== ================================================== ================
Fraud Factor
Published: April 18, 2009
While Washington is spending billions to shore up the financial system, it is doing far too little to strengthen the federal government’s ability to investigate and prosecute the sort of corporate and mortgage frauds that helped cause the economic collapse.
Those efforts — never fully adequate — have suffered in recent years as money and people were shifted from white-collar fraud to anti-terrorist activities. Over time, the ranks of fraud investigators and prosecutors were dramatically thinned, leaving the F.B.I. and the larger Justice Department ill prepared to keep pace with a skyrocketing number of serious fraud allegations. Now they are ill equipped to police the vast infusion of federal money into the economy.
A bipartisan measure newly approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now coming before the full Senate would begin to close the enforcement gap.
Sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Edward Kaufman of Delaware, both Democrats, and Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 would significantly expand the number of prosecutors, agents and analysts devoted to pursuing financial crimes.
It would strengthen existing federal fraud and money-laundering provisions, updating the definition of “financial institution” in federal fraud statutes to include largely unregulated mortgage businesses, for example, and reversing flawed court decisions that have undermined the effectiveness of the False Claims Act, one of the most potent weapons against government fraud.
The measure envisions spending $490 million over the next two fiscal years. Like a similar enforcement buildup in response to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, this one will contribute far more than it costs to the federal Treasury through restitutions and asset recoveries, according to the Congressional Budget Office forecast. Senators should not be asking if the expenditure is affordable, but whether it is enough
A version of this article appeared in print on April 18, 2009, on page A22 of the New York edition.
================================================== ================================================== ================
Is the House Swamp Drained Yet?
Published: April 18, 2009
The House investigation of Representative Charles Rangel’s ethical gaffes and misdeeds was supposed to be completed in January, by the initial estimate of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But the inquiry blithely rolls forward in secrecy — except for the recent disclosure that the ever feckless ethics committee has been without a chief counsel for the last eight months.
This glaring handicap, reported by Politico.com, is hardly a confidence builder for taxpayers as Mr. Rangel, a Democrat of New York, continues to wield the gavel on the Ways and Means Committee amid the nation’s economic trials. The congressman asked for the inquiry, which is reported to be in subcommittee, after news reports of assorted questionable dealings.
There was a violation of House standards in Mr. Rangel’s using an official letterhead to solicit outside donations for a public service center at City College of New York extolling “inspirational aspects” of his career. An oil executive who obliged with $1 million saw Mr. Rangel help protect an off-shore tax loophole worth tens of millions to the donor.
Mr. Rangel denies any quid-pro-quo violations, conceding a few irresponsible mistakes at most. But other serious issues are whether the House gift and ethics rules were violated by the congressman’s cut-rate use of rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem and his failure to disclose income and pay taxes on his Dominican villa.
Speaker Pelosi won her job with a convincing denunciation of the Republican Congress’s “culture of corruption,” plus a ringing promise to “drain the swamp” where House ethical standards festered. She deserves credit for forcing through the new quasi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics to vet and funnel complaints to the sitting ethics committee.
The office has begun work, though lacking critical subpoena power. It has 10 reviews of allegations under way, including one into the potential involvement of Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. in the alleged auction of President Obama’s vacated Senate seat by former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
It remains to be seen whether the new office results in greater transparency and public confidence in Congress — or more of the rope-a-dope ineffectiveness epitomized by the ethics committee. Speaker Pelosi should have had Mr. Rangel surrender his gavel during his ever lengthening ethics investigation. This failure will be compounded unless she prods the committee to fill its embarrassing absence of a chief counsel.
A version of this article appeared in print on April 18, 2009, on page A22 of the New York edition.