The Rejected Windfall
After Gov. Rick Scott of Florida thoughtlessly rejected $2.4 billion in federal aid for a high-speed rail line, he claimed last month that he was doing a huge favor for the national Treasury, which he expected would give away the money in tax cuts. That was nonsense, of course; Mr. Scott was really doing a favor for train passengers in the Northeast, Midwest and California, which were given $2 billion of his money on Monday for better service.
Florida voters might want to think about that decision as they sit in traffic jams, burning up $4-a-gallon gasoline. In fact, some of them clearly have thought about it because Mr. Scott now has some of the worst approval ratings of a Florida official in the last decade.
He has joined other newly elected Republican governors so rigidly opposed to the Obama administration that they are willing to harm their states to score points. The result is a crazy quilt of state relationships with Washington, stitched more with ideology than reason.
None of the money in Monday’s announcement will be going to Wisconsin, for example, where Gov. Scott Walker has also decided that his strapped state could do without rail improvements and the construction jobs that go with them. Nor will it go to Ohio, where Gov. John Kasich preferred rejectionism to the improvement of rail service among the state’s largest cities, which could have produced 16,000 jobs.
Instead, it will go to 15 states that have more farsighted leadership, who understand the important role federal dollars can play in stimulating the economy, moving people quickly from place to place and reducing tailpipe emissions. Some of those states are led by Republicans: Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan happily stood beside Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Monday to accept nearly $200 million to upgrade the rail line between Dearborn and Kalamazoo, the bulk of the Chicago-Detroit corridor.
The difference between states that want better infrastructure and those that do not is likely to grow in coming years. Some states will accept federal aid and tax themselves to pay for better trains, upgraded roads and bridges, and effective water systems. Others will not.
In the Northeast, several Amtrak corridors will be upgraded, including a sliver of the Acela line and the Empire line through upstate New York. The Chicago-St. Louis corridor will be improved, and $300 million will be invested in the high-speed project between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Texas is accepting $15 million to start work on a fast line between Dallas and Houston.
Transportation is not all that is at stake. Last year, Utah Republican lawmakers tried to refuse $101 million in federal money intended to save teachers’ jobs; they backed down when it was clear that Washington could send the money directly to school districts. Oklahoma and other states have rejected federal dollars connected to health care reform. Earlier this year, Missouri nearly rejected extended jobless benefits for 10,000 residents after a handful of Republicans said the money was wasteful.
Refusenik Republicans glorify shopworn principles like smaller government and states’ rights. They will have to defend them to their voters when the public hears the passenger trains whistling from the next state over.
New Attacks on Women’s Rights
With the help of 16 Democrats, House Republicans passed a bill the other day with the narrow-seeming title of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
The measure, which came just weeks after the furor over failed Republican attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, is a slightly modified version of a terrible bill proposed last year by Representative Christopher Smith, a Republican of New Jersey. It is far more sweeping than its title suggests.
In fact, the bill is not really about federal financing for abortion or even preventing insurers from offering any abortion coverage on the insurance exchanges created as part of federal health care reform. The federal Hyde Amendment has long barred federal financing of abortion, and the burdensome rules for segregating an individual’s premium payments from government subsidies already seems destined to discourage insurers from offering abortion coverage on the exchanges.
The Smith bill imposes new limitations on abortion access by driving to end abortion insurance coverage in the private market using the nation’s tax system as a weapon. A provision would deny tax credits to small businesses that offer private health plans that cover abortion services, as some 87 percent of private plans now do. The bill imposes no such restrictions on large corporations.
The measure also eliminates the medical-expense deduction for most abortions and ends the availability of reimbursement for abortion costs from medical savings accounts — changes that could invite intrusive inquiries from I.R.S. auditors trying to confirm whether an abortion procedure fell within exceptions for rape, incest or when the life of the woman is endangered.
Over all, the bill treats tax benefits as the equivalent of public expenditures for abortion. This equivalency is at odds with a reality in which individuals can deduct donations to religious institutions without running afoul of the constitutional bar of government support of religion.
Beyond the insurance realm, the Smith bill would permanently extend the prohibition on the District of Columbia from using locally raised revenue to provide abortion care that was imposed through fiscal 2011 as part of the budget compromise struck last month. The bill also would eliminate the yearly renewal of the Hyde Amendment’s denial of abortion services for poor women and others who rely on the federal government for their health care.
The administration has signaled it would veto the Smith bill. It should be on guard for attempts to sneak parts of it into the debt limit talks.
They Should Be Condemning Syria
Syrians have shown extraordinary courage, defying a bloody government crackdown to demand greater political rights and freedom. Their courage, and their blood, should shame the many governments that are cynically supporting Syria’s election later this month to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
It is outrageous that Syria is even being discussed for membership. Since the uprising began more than seven weeks ago, President Bashar al-Assad’s security apparatus has repeatedly responded with deadly force, including firing live ammunition at a funeral and seizing critically wounded demonstrators from a hospital. Hundreds are believed to have been killed, including 14 on Sunday. Thousands have been arrested or are missing. On Monday, the government boasted that it had gained the upper hand over the protesters.
Along with India, Indonesia and the Philippines, Syria is on a consensus slate to take one of four seats set aside for nations in the so-called Asian bloc. Despite pressure from the United States and Europe, Syria is refusing to abandon its candidacy.
Mr. Assad knows no shame. But shame on the Asian bloc for not insisting that Syria withdraw. India, Indonesia and the Philippines would be a lot more credible candidates if they refused to run with Syria. Shame, too, on the Arab members of the United Nations that reaffirmed support for Syria’s election even after Mr. Assad turned his guns on his people.
The Council nearly destroyed its credibility from the start when some of the worst abusers were immediately elected members. Its record had been improving. It ousted Libya from its ranks. Two weeks ago, it adopted a resolution urging Syria to “put an end to all human rights violations” and calling for an investigation of abuses.
Electing Syria would make a mockery of the Council — one from which it might never be able to recover. And it would make a mockery of all the countries that voted for Syria. Syria must be dropped from the slate.
Continuing Questions About Chernobyl
It has been 25 years since the worst nuclear power accident in history at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, and we still aren’t certain what health damage it may ultimately cause. That gap needs to be filled by a vigorous research program — both to improve readiness to cope with another bad nuclear accident and to enhance understanding of the long-term effects of low doses of radiation.
Although Chernobyl is rightly synonymous with disaster, international health authorities have found the damage from fallout downwind to be far less than originally feared. The latest evaluation — a United Nations committee in 2008 — concludes that emergency workers who struggled to bring the plant under control suffered great harm but the wider public was barely affected.
In the three countries hit with the most fallout — Belarus, Ukraine and parts of the Russian Federation — the committee found that the only significant harm was several thousand cases of highly curable thyroid cancer among people who were exposed as children, mostly by drinking contaminated milk. Only a handful have died.
Critics have long contended that such estimates downplayed the dangers. Now a panel of experts assembled at the request of the European Commission is also calling for a wider look. It cited scattered reports, many appearing in leading scientific journals, suggesting that Chernobyl’s radiation might be increasing the risk of breast cancer, various other cancers, and immunological abnormalities, among other effects.
The panel suggested that a research foundation be established to conduct long-term studies much as a foundation in Japan has been studying the long-term effects of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is a very good idea. The continuing uncertainties should be a warning to Japanese authorities to begin studies of the health effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident while the evidence trail is still fresh.
0 comments:
Post a Comment