Chilling Echoes From Sept. 11
As the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania draws near, one of the main recommendations of the 9/11 Commission remains unfulfilled: the creation of a common communications system that lets emergency responders talk to one another across jurisdictions.
The problem was laid bare in the tragic cacophony at the World Trade Center, where scores of firefighters perished as police and fire officials couldn’t communicate on antiquated radio systems before the second tower fell.
Four years later during Hurricane Katrina, emergency workers from across the nation faced the same dangerous problem. They had to resort to running handwritten notes to warn of shifting conditions.
Congress should be haunted by the threat of new disasters finding rescue workers still incommunicado. Responsible lawmakers can mark the 10th anniversary by passing legislation to finally create a national public safety communications network.
The overall challenge is more complex than it sounds, touching on questions of financing, broadcast spectrum fights, technology innovation and turf battles among local public safety agencies.
Congress can begin cutting through a lot of that by approving the reallocation of radio spectrum to wireless broadband providers and public safety agencies. This would allow creation of a modern emergency system providing common access when needed by voice, video and text for responders now using separate voice systems typically jammed up in emergencies.
Senator John Rockefeller IV, chairman of the science and transportation committee, is championing the commission’s dedicated spectrum approach, warning that the faulty emergency communication on 9/11 was “probably the greatest killer other than the planes themselves.” He has the support of the ranking Republican, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.
Crucial details remain to be settled.
Would a nonprofit corporation best manage the new network? What’s the best way to get commercial broadcasters to yield needed spectrum — through incentive auctions proposed by the Obama administration?
Once Congress acts, this new generation of wireless broadband would require years of infrastructure construction. In the meantime, public safety and homeland security officials across the nation have been tapping into billions in federal aid designed to patch improvements into existing voice systems.
Critics warn there’s been too much reliance on buying hardware and not enough on planning and coordinating among fiefdoms still reluctant to come to terms on single useful systems. In New York, where the scars of 9/11 remain raw, there is not yet a fully compatible system among police officers, firefighters and Port Authority forces, but officials insist they are making progress.
How many warnings does Congress need? How many more people will be endangered because of bureaucratic wrangling or political inertia? “Further delay is intolerable,” the commission’s leaders, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, declared earlier this year. They are right.
Breaking Faith
“I will not vote to deny a vote to a Democratic president’s judicial nominee just because the nominee may have views more liberal than mine.”
That was Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, promising in 2003 not to filibuster judicial nominees for reasons of ideology. But on Thursday, Mr. Alexander, along with 41 other Senate Republicans, voted to filibuster one of President Obama’s judicial nominees for that very reason — breaking a promise and kindling yet another row over a president’s right to appoint like-minded judges.
The fight was over Goodwin Liu, a Berkeley law professor nominated by the president for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He lost on a vote of 52 to 43, short of the 60-vote requirement demanded by Republicans.
He became the first Obama nominee to be successfully filibustered, and the only nominee since 2005. That year, a Senate “Gang of 14” agreed that such nominees should be allowed an up-or-down majority vote except in extraordinary circumstances.
The group was correct in preserving the right to filibuster the most extreme candidates, but the agreement is meaningless if senators are going to define someone like Mr. Liu as a legal extremist. He is, not surprisingly, a liberal thinker who is nonetheless squarely in the legal mainstream, having even received the support of strong conservatives, including Kenneth Starr and Clint Bolick.
What, specifically, made him so extraordinary that he was not worthy of an up-or-down vote? The Republican argument against him is laughably thin. “He believes the Constitution is a fluid, evolving document,” said Jeff Sessions of Alabama. John Cornyn of Texas falsely accused Mr. Liu of holding the “ridiculous view that our Constitution somehow guarantees a European-style welfare state.”
But other Republicans were more forthcoming about the real reason for the blockade: Mr. Liu dared to criticize Justice Samuel Alito Jr. as harshly conservative before he was confirmed to the Supreme Court. The filibuster apparently was payback, and the Republican eagerness for revenge has broken faith and a clear understanding on the Senate floor. That will make it harder to fill benches during this administration and many more to come.
When Treatment Is Also Prevention
The discovery of a near-perfect way to halt sexual transmission of the AIDS virus has the potential to change the way international agencies and nations cope with the epidemic. But that can only happen if troubling issues of cost and practicality can be surmounted.
The study involved more than 1,700 couples in nine countries, the vast majority of them heterosexuals. One member had the virus that causes AIDS; the other did not. It demonstrated conclusively that if infected partners are treated with a cocktail of drugs immediately — instead of waiting for their immune systems to deteriorate — the risk of transmitting the virus to the uninfected partner drops by 96 percent. The only reported health benefit of early treatment for the infected partner was a reduced risk of tuberculosis spreading beyond the lungs.
Infected partners would have to start early on a lifetime of taking drugs mostly for altruistic reasons — to avoid infecting their partners. Further research may document greater health benefits. It seems likely that earlier treatment that keeps immune systems strong should further slow the progression of the virus to full-fledged AIDS and ward off other devastating co-infections.
International organizations don’t have enough money to treat all those who qualify for drug therapy under current guidelines. They will be hard-pressed to find additional money to treat millions more people to slow the spread of the virus. With most industrialized economies still lagging, there is little appetite for increasing aid.
A strong moral case can be made for protecting millions more people from infection, but there may be an economic case as well. We need valid, well-documented estimates as to whether a big investment in prevention now might pay for itself in the long run by greatly reducing the number of sick people who have to be cared for.
A Budget Without Core Purposes, Taxation Without Compassion
President Obama trusts America’s generous and compassionate nature, that our rugged individualism is tempered by a belief that we’re all connected. In his speech on budget reform on April 13, he celebrated “our belief that those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more.”
The president’s faith in Americans’ sense of common purpose is uplifting. But it does not fit the history of American budgetary politics.
I don’t just mean Tea Partiers’ revulsion at the government spending “our money,” or Republican Paul Ryan’s Reverse Robin Hood gambit to cut trillions from spending on social programs in order to pay for a tax cut for the rich.
The budgetary policy of the United States has been the least generous in the industrial world for a very long time.
Tax revenues in the United States have not reached 30 percent of gross domestic product since at least 1965. Today they amount to only 24 percent of G.D.P. In Britain, by contrast, they are 34 percent; in Sweden, 46 percent. And our government spending on social programs is equally puny. In 2007 Britain spent 25 percent more, as a share of its economy. Germany spent almost 60 percent more.
Cash transfers — for unemployment insurance, pensions, benefits for children and the like — amount to only 9 percent of household disposable income in the United States. Among the industrialized nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only Korea provides less.
The government doesn’t just spend too little trying to improve the lives of less-fortunate Americans. It spends badly — lavishing benefits on the relatively well-to-do with misdirected subsidies. Within the O.E.C.D., only Korea’s social transfers do a worse job in boosting incomes at the bottom and reducing income inequality.
Historically, we made up for some of these shortcomings by taxing the rich more heavily than the poor or middle class. But the tax code has become dramatically less progressive since the 1960s, as tax cuts and loopholes have reduced a wide variety of taxes paid by the rich.
In 2007, the average income-tax rate paid by the richest 400 taxpayers in the country was 16.62 percent — according to figures from the Internal Revenue Service. Between 1970 and 2005, total federal taxes paid by the top 0.01 percent of earners fell by half, as a share of their income, to 35 percent on average, according to the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. This compares with 42 percent in Britain and 62 percent in France.
Representative Ryan would surely protest that our stingy public policy is not motivated by greed, but by necessity — that it is indispensable to sustaining robust economic growth. High taxes and big government, in this view, will encourage sloth among the undeserving and discourage productive citizens from giving all in the workplace.
This argument doesn’t hold up. The prosperity of Swedes has grown faster than that of Americans over the last 20 years. Even if lower taxes contributed to growth, I would suggest that we reconsider the trade-off. It’s not working out for most of us.
As the president noted in his speech at George Washington University, growth has not delivered prosperity to all of us: 90 percent of working Americans saw their incomes fall in the past decade. The top 1 percent, though, saw their income rise by more than a quarter of a million dollars on average.
President Obama is right to cast the negotiations with Congress over the budget in terms of our values: “It’s about the kind of future that we want. It’s about the kind of country that we believe in.”
But perhaps he shouldn’t trust Americans’ generosity and compassion to simply carry the day on Capitol Hill. To build the America he extols he is going to have to fight for it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment