EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

 

Stop the Blame Game

After more than two weeks under attack by NATO forces, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is still slaughtering his people and showing no sign that he plans to give up. NATO and coalition partners are pointing fingers of blame at each other for this frustrating state of affairs, but what they should be doing is creating a renewed sense of common purpose and direction.

At a meeting in Doha, Qatar, on Wednesday, senior Western, Arab and African allies made some progress. They called jointly for the first time for Colonel Qaddafi to step aside, promised to work on a mechanism to funnel frozen Libyan assets to the cash-strapped rebels and urged a political settlement. But then one day later, NATO foreign ministers could not resolve deep differences over crucial details of the war the alliance began three weeks ago to counter an onslaught by Colonel Qaddafi’s planes, helicopters, tanks and mortars. The main dispute: How to persuade Mr. Qaddafi to cede power.

The British and French are especially frustrated that NATO air power backed by United Nations sanctions has not forced Mr. Qaddafi out or halted the shelling of the city of Misrata, under siege for six weeks.

It is always a long shot when an untrained opposition goes against a ruthless dictator with a well-equipped army. But tactical conflicts and the lack of clear goals are making it even harder.

American planes dominated the early phase of airstrikes, then turned over major responsibility to France, Britain and a non-American NATO command. Now with Colonel Qaddafi thwarting NATO by hiding heavy weapons in heavily populated neighborhoods, Paris and London are insisting that more countries are needed to attack ground targets, not just enforce the no-flight zone.

The American A-10 antitank aircraft and AC-130 ground attack gunship used earlier in the Libya fighting are uniquely suited to make precision strikes on ground targets without unduly endangering civilians. Mr. Obama should authorize them to fly again under NATO command.

With the United States bogged down in two other wars, President Obama was right to step back quickly and let the Europeans take the lead. Other countries — including Italy, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands — should do more to help. So far only six of the alliance’s 28 members are striking targets. NATO also needs to work harder with rebel forces on choosing ground targets.

Libya is a test of whether NATO can succeed at a mission in which the United States plays a support rather than a lead role. Results are decidedly mixed. A quick and peaceful outcome is in Europe’s direct interest, especially Italy’s. It faces an influx of refugees. Britain and France need to firmly make that case to their European partners.

The coalition should consider allowing countries to arm the rebels if they choose. The weapons must be defensive and training provided. Qatar, one of the few Arab countries contributing warplanes to the air campaign, helped the rebels sell oil to buy weapons and supplies. Britain offered 1,000 sets of body armor. We are encouraged that talk of sending foreign forces into Libya — a very bad idea — has quieted.

No political settlement in which the dictator remains in place will work. The West and its partners must be ready to maintain political, economic and military pressure until he is gone.

An Undemocratic Bailout

Portugal needs international help to meet its debt obligations. But the insistence by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund that the caretaker Portuguese government commit to a long-term plan of fiscal austerity and economic reform in exchange for a rescue package is misguided.

The government of Prime Minister José Sócrates fell in March after the opposition rejected its austerity plan to address the economic crisis and is holding on to office only until special elections, which are scheduled for June 5. Not only would any reform package from the outgoing government lack legitimacy, it would lack credibility with investors, who would suspect the next government might not live up to what will inevitably be very painful terms.
Rather than try to hammer out a definitive package, the European Union and the I.M.F. should give Portugal a bridge loan and wait to negotiate a deal until there is a new government in place. This would give Portuguese voters a chance to vote on proposals by each party to address the emergency.
In the meantime, Europe needs to rethink its all-pain-all-the-time approach to bailouts. The terms imposed on Greece and Ireland are stifling growth. On Wednesday, Germany acknowledged Greece may have to restructure its debts — rather than pay them in full.
Representatives from the European Union and the I.M.F. landed in Lisbon on Tuesday to negotiate a bailout plan expected to be worth $115 billion. The formula, by now, is predictable: deep budget cuts, cuts to public-sector wages and tax increases. They are also likely to demand that Portugal privatize state-run enterprises and reform labor laws to make it cheaper to hire and fire workers.
The approach assumes sharp fiscal tightening will right Portugal’s finances, ignoring how a precipitous drop in government spending will cripple growth and Portugal’s ability to repay its debts. And it is unjust, demanding outsize, lasting sacrifices from the Portuguese people in order to repay Portugal’s creditors 100 cents on the euro.
There is time to get this right. Lisbon appears to have the funds it needs to meet a $7 billion debt-service payment coming due on Friday. While it does not have the money to meet a $10 billion payment on June 15, the European Union could provide short-term financing — with few strings attached — until a definitive deal could be negotiated with the new government. That is the best hope of coming up with a deal that Portugal’s new government and its voters can support — and one creditors will trust.

The Republican Medicare Reshuffle

Representative Paul Ryan and the House Republicans are portraying their budget proposal for the next fiscal year as a courageous effort to finally bring federal spending on Medicare under control. An analysis issued last week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that the Ryan proposalwould sharply reduce federal spending — but at the price of shifting more of Medicare’s costs onto beneficiaries and their families.
How much more? Calculations derived from the C.B.O. analysis show that in 2022, when the Ryan plan would kick in, the typical 65-year-old would pay $6,400 to $7,000 more per year than would be paid for comparable coverage under traditional Medicare.
Mr. Ryan’s proposal would change Medicare from an entitlement program in which the government pays for a defined set of medical services into a “premium support” program in which the government would give beneficiaries money to help them buy private insurance. He contends that competition among health care plans and more judicious use of health care services by beneficiaries can help bring down the cost of health care and reduce the federal government’s burden.
But the C.B.O. says a private plan offering comparable benefits would be a lot more expensive than traditional Medicare because the private insurer would have higher administrative costs, would need to make a profit and, in an extrapolation of current trends, would pay hospitals, doctors and other providers substantially more than Medicare does. Beneficiaries would have to pay higher out-of-pocket costs or buy skimpier policies.
The Ryan plan has no chance of becoming law while the Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. But if health care becomes a defining issue in the 2012 elections — as it should — everyone under the age of 55 is on notice that Mr. Ryan’s plan would impose heavy costs on them when they reach age 65.

Memo to Arizona Republicans: Papers, Please

The Republicans who control the Arizona Legislature are back at it. The Senate just passed a bill that would bar presidential candidates from the ballot in Arizona unless they submitted extensive paperwork proving they were natural-born Americans.

That means, specifically, a sworn affidavit stating citizenship and age; a long-form birth certificate showing date and place of birth, name of hospital and doctor, and witness signatures; and a sworn statement listing a candidate’s places of residence for the last 14 years. The bill was amended slightly before passing: if a candidate doesn’t have the long-form certificate, supporting evidence like baptismal or circumcision records or notarized affidavits from witnesses could also suffice.

Even that will not necessarily be enough to get on the ballot. Arizona’s secretary of state would have to agree that the records satisfied the requirements. If not, he or she could establish a committee to investigate and submit documents “for forensic examination.”

Whatever happens, nobody is going to pull one over on Arizona. Representative Carl Seel, who has sponsored the same legislation in the Arizona House, insists that this has nothing to do with President Obama or the absurd claims that he’s not an American citizen. Instead, he calls it an “integrity measure,” meant to ensure that the state would never elect candidates who are ineligible.

The base political motivations behind all of this should be clear. But if Arizona’s Republicans are really so devoted to the idea, they should put their own papers where their mouths are.

Senate President Russell Pearce and every senator who voted for the bill and every House member who plans to, should gladly and swiftly post their sworn affidavits along with their birth certificates, baptismal and other records online for the world to see. If this is really a question of integrity, what are they waiting for?