EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

Listen to Judge Lippman

Acknowledging New York’s deep fiscal crisis, Judge Jonathan Lippman, the state’s chief judge, has reluctantly agreed to make cuts in his $2.7 billion budget request, including a reduction in the number of people working for the court system. But he is refusing to back down on his call for a $25 million increase, to $40 million, in support for civil legal service programs that help low-income New Yorkers faced with foreclosures, evictions, domestic violence and other serious legal problems.

His commitment comes at a time when Republicans in Washington are determined to slash the federal contributions to these essential programs.
Judge Lippman knows what he is up against politically but is undaunted. In a recent talk at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in Manhattan, he described the shocking need for help out there — and the cost to justice and the judicial system if it continues to go unmet.
He told of state courtrooms that are “standing room only, filled with frightened, unrepresented litigants — many of them newly indigent — who are fighting to keep a roof over their heads, fighting to keep their children, fighting to keep their sources of income and health care.” And he cited the astonishing fact that in New York City 99 percent of tenants in eviction cases and 99 percent of borrowers in consumer credit cases have no lawyers.
“What is at stake,” he said, “is nothing less than the legitimacy of our justice system,” adding that the rule of law “loses its meaning when the protection of our laws is available only to those who can afford it.”
Judge Lippman offered a final practical reason for increasing spending on civil legal services: preventing unwarranted evictions, avoiding foster care placements, helping clients get access to federal benefits and easing court delays will carry real economic benefits for the state. He is right on all counts. The Legislature should approve the increase.

The Cheaters and Their Banks

The Obama administration is rightly keeping the pressure on tax cheats and the bank executives who help them by stashing their money in secret accounts overseas. Now we would like to see the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department take the battle to the banks themselves. That’s the only way of getting them to drop this lucrative and illegal business.

The Justice Department has charged five bankers with helping wealthy Americans conceal their assets from American authorities. A former employee of Switzerland’s UBS who now works for rival Credit Suisse was arrested in January and accused of helping 100 to 150 Americans hide as much as $500 million from tax authorities.
A few weeks later, three former employees and one current banker at Credit Suisse were indicted for helping 17 Americans conceal assets in accounts at the bank and then helping them move the stash to other banks in Switzerland, Hong Kong and Israel once it was clear American authorities were on the trail of tax evaders at big Swiss banks.
This is a promising route both to recover unpaid taxes and to deter other Americans from trying to evade the I.R.S. this way. So far, however, the banks have faced no charges. The country-hopping by the Credit Suisse account holders in search of a safer hiding place suggests that cross-border tax evasion won’t be shut down until the institutions determine that secret offshore accounts are too risky a business.
The I.R.S.’s strategy gathered momentum when the agency went after UBS, which was caught sending bankers to the United States to offer tax evasion services and settled with the government. The bank paid a $780 million fine and exited the business. It promised to cooperate with the government and later revealed the names of some 5,000 American secret account holders. The case eventually led Switzerland to relax its bank secrecy laws and cooperate with American authorities.
Since then, some 20,000 Americans have disclosed their accounts to the I.R.S., taking advantage of programs that shielded them from prosecution in exchange for paying back taxes, interest and a substantial fine. UBS has since gotten out of the American cross-border banking business, as have Credit Suisse and other big Swiss banks. But there are still banks willing to open secret offshore accounts for wealthy Americans. It will take some more high-profile action against financial institutions to force them out of the racket.

Mr. Maliki’s Power Grab

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq is drawing the wrong lessons from the upheavals in the Arab world. Inspired by uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, thousands of Iraqis have taken to the streets to criticize their government’s failure to combat corruption, create more jobs or improve electricity and other services. Nearly 20 Iraqis have been killed in clashes with security forces.Instead of taking responsibility, Mr. Maliki charged that the protests were organized by “terrorists.” He ordered the closing of the offices of two political parties that helped lead the demonstrations.
His only concessions were vows not to seek a third term in 2014 and to cut his pay in half. That was not persuasive, especially given his many recent power grabs.
It has been one year since national elections and three months since Mr. Maliki and the opposition leader Ayad Allawi finally ended their destructive impasse and formed a government. Yet Mr. Maliki has still not filled all his cabinet positions — most notably, he has not named a defense minister or interior minister. Instead, he is personally overseeing the powerful, and often abusive, army and police forces.
That concentration of clout is corrosive, especially to a fragile, new democracy.
Mr. Maliki needs to quickly appoint competent professionals to run the two institutions and let them do their jobs in a fair, impartial manner. The reported torture and other abuses by security forces must stop now.
Mr. Maliki’s thirst for power doesn’t end there. In January, Iraq’s highest court — which is far too cozy with the prime minister — agreed to let him take control of three formerly independent agencies that run the central bank, conduct elections and investigate corruption. (Last week, the court issued a “clarification,” insisting the agencies would remain independent; we’re eager to see if that proves true.)
Six months earlier, the court — at Mr. Maliki’s request — ruled that only the prime minister or his cabinet, not members of Parliament, could propose legislation. Democracy requires checks and balances. They are fast disappearing in Iraq.
It’s reassuring to see so many young people willing to criticize their government, without picking up guns. Protests have largely called for more freedom and effective government, not the political system’s overthrow.
As American troops prepare to withdraw in July, the United States has to keep pressing Iraqis — including with targeted aid — toward a more democratic system, grounded in the rule of law. It needs to encourage other Iraqi leaders to both challenge and work with Mr. Maliki to build a more responsive government.
Despite winning the most votes in the last election, Mr. Allawi — whose deal with Mr. Maliki to head a new national strategic policy council appears to have fallen apart — doesn’t work hard enough or spend enough time in Iraq to be an effective opposition leader. Other politicians and Parliament need to step up and play that role.
After all that the Iraqi people, and American soldiers, have sacrificed, Iraq’s democracy must not be allowed to falter because of Mr. Maliki’s ambitions or the passivity of other leaders.

Gulf Oil Spill Damages, Phase Two

There must be days when Kenneth Feinberg, who administered the 9/11 victims fund nearly a decade ago, asks himself why he ever volunteered to run the $20 billion compensation fund for victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. He has heard little but criticism — some justified and helpful, some unfair and unhelpful — from the start.

Gulf coast residents have complained of delays and shoddy treatment. Representative Jo Bonner, an Alabama Republican, recently called the program a “monster” and Mr. Feinberg a “miser.” A Mobile newspaper once asked the White House to fire him. And now BP, whose money Mr. Feinberg is dispensing, has jumped in with the claim that Mr. Feinberg is being too generous.
Mr. Feinberg pushes forward, as he should, making midcourse corrections in the program’s rules, as he also should. As of March 10, he had awarded $3.6 billion to 170,000 claimants across five gulf states, mostly in “emergency payments” equal to six months’ lost income. The Justice Department, which has kept a close and critical eye on the program, says these are “significant numbers by any measure.”
The emergency payments period is over; now begins the harder task of calculating final payments. Claimants have three years to file. Nobody is required to accept a final payment, but those who do — as in the 9/11 program — give up their right to sue BP. Alternatively, claimants can receive “interim” payments for damages as they accrue, without relinquishing their right to sue.
The interim payment alternative is crucially important. Mr. Feinberg’s instinct will be to encourage people to accept a final settlement; the main purpose of the program, after all, is to provide an expeditious alternative to drawn-out lawsuits, and the idea worked well after 9/11.
Even so, as Mr. Feinberg acknowledges, it’s hard to predict how quickly the gulf is going to recover, or how soon businesses — shrimpers, for instance — will return to good health. The Justice Department has urged him not to favor one form of payment, and to make sure that interim claims are processed fairly and efficiently.
We would expect Mr. Feinberg to be evenhanded. He has already made several positive changes at the department’s urging. Until quite recently, for instance, he had limited eligibility to businesses obviously affected by the spill, like fishing and lodging. This effectively excluded some potential claimants, dentists for instance, who say they have lost tourist revenue. Mr. Feinberg has also promised a more customer-friendly and transparent approach to individual applicants.
Justice should continue to comment, and Mr. Feinberg should continue to listen. Meanwhile, the more boisterous politicians could show some patience. Nearly 250,000 individuals and businesses have already filed claims for final or interim payments, with more coming. Finding a balance between paying claims in a prompt manner and ensuring their validity is a hard enough job without grandstanding from the sidelines.