EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

 

 

Their Temper Tantrum

Congressional Republicans, who played a major role in piling up the government’s unsustainable debt in the first place, have thrown a tantrum and walked out of the debt limit talks. This bit of grandstanding has brought the nation closer to the financial crisis that Republicans have been threatening for weeks. But, at least now, their real goals are in sharp focus.

The two Republicans in the talks, Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, and Senator Jon Kyl, the minority whip, had no intention of actually negotiating. Negotiations require listening to those on the other side and giving them something they want in exchange for some of your goals.
It has been obvious all along that cutting government services alone is not a solution to either the budget deficit or the mounting national debt. The Democrats, at least, acknowledged that reality at the bargaining table by saying that along with the cuts the Republicans cherish, there would have to be increases in revenue — an end to unnecessary tax loopholes for corporations or the rich.
Those demands were modest — too modest — and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr., who is leading the talks, said they were making progress. But any compromise at all proved too much for the Republicans.
Mr. Cantor said that because he and the House would not support a tax increase, he was walking out of the talks until President Obama “resolved” the tax issue himself with House Speaker John Boehner. In other words, Mr. Cantor and Mr. Kyl preferred striking a Tea Party pose to the hard work of reaching a deal.
The negotiators say they have essentially agreed on about $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years, which could be acceptable if they are phased in gradually and exempt the nation’s most vulnerable. But Democrats in the talks say that in exchange for agreeing to those cuts, they asked for some balancing increases in revenues. Their proposals were not to raise tax rates, but rather to end credits like those for oil and gas companies. One Democratic negotiator, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said they also want to curb tax deductions for the very rich.
It was inevitable that Mr. Obama, Mr. Boehner and Senate leaders would have to write the final chapter of these talks, and Republicans were at least correct in asking for a more public role from the president, who has shied away from leadership here. Mr. Boehner has, so far, limited his opposition to tax rate increases, and he may prove more willing to accept reality and the need for revenue than Mr. Cantor.
But at least 11 hard-line Senate Republicans have already said they will oppose any deal that does not include a balanced-budget amendment — a nonstarter for Democrats — and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said this week that all revenue increases are the same as raising taxes and are unacceptable.
The deadline for raising the debt limit or facing a default is Aug. 2. Republicans cannot walk away from their responsibility to pay the bills and keep the economy out of further crisis.

 

Congress’s Choice on Libya

House Republicans are gearing up to vote, likely Friday, on whether to authorize continued United States support for NATO-led military operations overLibya. There are two main proposals — and a clear choice to be made. We fear they are leaning in a wrongheaded and dangerous direction.
One measure, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney and apparently backed by the House leadership, would allow financing only for American surveillance, search-and-rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. Republicans say that if it passes, the Pentagon would have to halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses.
They claimed it would do minimal damage to the alliance and its campaign because the United States would still be providing some support. But the damage to this country’s credibility, and its leadership of NATO, would be enormous. Any sign that the United States is bailing out could lead others to follow.
It is hard to view this bill as anything but a partisan play to embarrass the president. The one sure victor would be Libya’s strongman, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who would see it as a sign that NATO’s resolve is faltering and another reason to keep brutalizing his people.
The second measure — and much preferred alternative — is a version of a bipartisan resolution proposed in the Senate by John Kerry and John McCain. It would authorize American participation in the Libya air campaign for one year but bar the use of ground troops, which President Obama has said he has no plans of deploying.
Mr. Obama made the wrong choice, trying to evade his responsibility under the 1973 War Powers Act to seek Congressional authorization within 60 days of introducing armed forces into “hostilities” — or terminate the operation. The White House claimed that the Pentagon’s limited operations are not the sort of “hostilities” covered by the act. It is not credible.
Mr. Obama would have done better arguing his case for the Libyan operation. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was playing catch-up on Capitol Hill on Thursday. We are certain if NATO had not intervened, thousands more Libyans would have been slaughtered. We also believe Congress has an important role to play in this debate. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to vote on the Kerry-McCain measure next week. The majority leader, Harry Reid, has said he has the votes in the Senate. Thankfully, some Senate Republicans also seem to understand the importance of the United States following through on its national security commitments.
We hope, after Friday, we will be able to say the same thing about the House.

Drug Marketing and Free Speech

Pharmaceutical companies, which spend billions of dollars a year promoting their products to doctors, have found that it is very useful to know what drugs a doctor has prescribed in the past. Many use data collected from prescriptions processed by pharmacies — a doctor’s name, the drugs and the dosage — to refine their marketing practices and increase sales.
The Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for states to protect medical privacy with laws that regulate such practices. In 2007, Vermont passed a law that forbade the sale of such records by pharmacies and their use for marketing purposes. The ruling upheld a lower court decision that struck down the law as unconstitutional.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 6-to-3 majority, said the law violates First Amendment rights by imposing a “burden on protected expression” on specific speakers (drug marketers) and specific speech (information about the doctors and what they prescribed). It is unconstitutional because it restricts the transfer of that information and what the marketers have to say.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer explains that the law’s only restriction is on access to data “that could help pharmaceutical companies create better sales messages.” He notes that any speech-related effects are “indirect, incidental, and entirely commercial.” By applying strict First Amendment scrutiny to this ordinary economic regulation, he warns, the court threatens to substitute “judicial for democratic decision-making.”
The law would have been upheld, Justice Breyer says, if the court had treated it as a restriction on commercial speech, which is less robustly protected than political speech. The court’s majority unwisely narrows the gap between commercial and political speech, and makes it harder to protect consumers.

 

Politicians Who Fear the Public Light

As we wrote this editorial on Thursday evening, we were still waiting for the New York State Senate to do what it should have done long ago — end a basic inequality under the law by allowing same-sex couples the full right to marry. The solution is obvious: Pass a clean bill that allows all adult New Yorkers to marry whomever they choose to marry, without unneeded exemptions for religious-affiliated organizations.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo introduced a good bill, which was promptly approved by the Assembly. In the Senate, the measure seemed to be only one vote shy of passage, but Republicans have kept it from the floor.
It was also galling that despite the crowds of protesters engaging in a passionate debate in the Capitol this week, the real debate on marriage equality was held in secret. Governor Cuomo, his staff, a few Republican state senators and several gay-rights advocates were quietly considering ways to compromise on this historic bill.
In Albany, they say hidden talks are necessary to get anything done. Nonsense. The state’s leaders just don’t want public scrutiny. It’s a cowardly way to conduct the public’s business.
Mr. Cuomo, who once promised new openness in Albany, sealed negotiations on marriage and ethics and other matters in ways that rival some of his most secretive predecessors. The Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, said on Thursday that he had seen revised language for the governor’s marriage-equality bill and that it was “acceptable.” But he refused to share it with the public.
The issue — apparently — has been how far Republicans could push same-sex marriage advocates for special exceptions. The big question became whether nonprofit groups affiliated with religious institutions can bar ceremonies or wedding parties on their property because the couple are of the same gender. Mr. Cuomo’s bill handled the balance between religious freedom and the freedom against discrimination just right. No one needed to change it, and especially not furtively.