Editorial

What they're saying…

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:


Feb. 18

Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, on Vice President Dick Cheney:

Vice President Dick Cheney has been widely criticized across party lines for the way he handled his quail-hunting accident. He kept it secret for a day, then didn't put it out himself, but had his host call a newspaper.

Finally, under pressure (including from the White House, by his own account), he agreed to an interview, and then only on Robert Murdoch's Republican-friendly Fox network.

He took full responsibility for the shooting. Good. But he also offered some gibberish of a defense for his post-shooting behavior, selling it to nobody who had an open mind.

If he has bumbled his way through this, nobody should be surprised. Dick Cheney is, after all, the most -- how to say this politely? -- overrated man in Washington. ...

Feb. 21

The Herald-Journal, Spartanburg, S.C., on health savings accounts:

President Bush is on the right path when he advocates a health care system in which people pay more of their own bills.

One of the main problems with our health care system is that in most instances a third party pays the bills. The patient, the person who determines how much service is used, usually doesn't have to pay for it.

Employers, insurance companies and government programs usually pay for health care under our system. Patients may have to make a small co-payment, but it is not enough to make them think twice about how much they use the system. ...

If this individual had to pay the cost of the visit and the prescription out of his own pocket, he might go to the doctor only when he truly needs a physician's care. ...

Such accounts will not work for everyone. The poor will still need government-provided health care.

But Congress ought to join the president in expanding the use of health care savings accounts.

If more people are spending their own money to pay for health care, the growth in health care costs will slow.

Feb. 21

Gloucester County Times, Woodbury, N.J., on port security:

From the outcry, you might think the Bush administration had turned over protection of U.S. container ports directly to al-Qaida operatives.

That is not true, of course. But the transfer of some port facilities -- including terminals in Philadelphia and New York harbor -- to a United Arab Emerates-owned company has caused consternation in Congress.

Did the administration think it could get away with signing off on this without raising hackles back in the home ports? Apparently, it did, even after the National Security Agency wiretapping case provided a textbook example of the perils of not letting Congress in on what the administration was doing. To be fair, the administration did not initiate the deal. These container cargo terminals had been operated under contract by a British-based company, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation, better known as P&O. But P&O is being purchased by Dubai Ports World, which is not only UAE-based, but owned by its government. And, that government has a limited track record of hospitality to terrorists.

If that did not raise huge red flags over in London, it should have. Here, a special committee that is supposed to monitor foreign investment OK'd the transfer without much discussion. The committee represents the defense, state and homeland security departments.

What did the Bush administration demand of the new owners? U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who is familiar with some of the terms, says not enough as concerns background checks for employees who might be security risks. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said "certain conditions" to address national security are put in such contracts. But, he added, they are classified, so he couldn't talk about them. In other words, "Trust us."

Senators of both parties from New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey are rightfully outraged. Our local House members, Frank LoBiondo and Robert Andrews, are upset by the deal.

The administration notes that neither Dubai Ports World, nor any foreign government, is in charge of port security -- the Coast Guard and the Department Homeland Security are. Given some of the previously reported deficiencies in that area, however, does it make sense to have container cargo -- a notorious hiding place for contraband and worse -- go through the hands of an Arab government?

Not without extraordinary scrutiny and oversight, it doesn't. Right now, citizens have received little assurance of either.