Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
Dec. 30
The Washington Post on the presidency, life and legacy of Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carterâs presidency began with a simple act meant to signal a new relationship between the people and their government: He and his wife, Rosalynn, got out of their limousine and walked a short part of the inaugural parade route, hand in hand. His time in office ended four years later with a spiteful gesture by the revolutionary government of Iran, which released 52 American hostages it had held for 444 days â but only when Mr. Carter was out of office, and at the very moment when his triumphant successor was delivering his inaugural address.
It was the final insult of Mr. Carterâs term in office and the end of what was widely regarded, according to much commentary and a fair swath of public opinion, as a âfailedâ presidency. But was his presidency, which ended 43 years before his death Sunday at age 100, really a failed one? Itâs not easy to say just what constitutes failure in a presidency: war, economic disruption that goes on for years, civil conflict? Some highly regarded presidents saw all these things on their watches.
Itâs obvious that much went badly during Mr. Carterâs time in the White House. To some extent, he was overtaken by events that had been set in motion well before he took office. The seething resentment among many Iranians that led to the hostage crisis dated back at least a quarter-century. The economic problems that dogged the administration were a continuation of trends that had been developing through two or three administrations, and they were greatly exacerbated by the oil crisis triggered by Iranâs revolution. The general dismay with and alienation from government could be, and generally were, seen as in large part products of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.
In fact, there were solid and lasting accomplishments by the Carter administration. The Camp David agreement, which has brought a long if uneasy peace to what was the most dangerous conflict point in the Middle East, was his administrationâs greatest foreign policy achievement. Itâs hard to see how the accord between Egyptâs Anwar Sadat and Israelâs Menachem Begin could have been reached without Mr. Carterâs constant presence during the talks and careful attention to the needs of the two principals.
There was no great political benefit to be had in that endeavor, and there was even less in another: the treaties that changed the status of the Panama Canal Zone and ended a number of American prerogatives there. It wasnât a popular action, but Mr. Carter pursued it to completion because he thought it the most sensible and fair solution to a problem that threatened to become worse over time as Panamanian politicians demanded change and fomented discontent in a sensitive area.
Nor was Mr. Carterâs advocacy of human rights as an essential element of American foreign policy particularly politic. In practice, of course, he found that reconciling such high ideals with U.S. interests abroad was no simple matter: He faced many of the same contradictions as presidents before and after him, and ended â in both his presidency and his post-presidential travels â feeling the need to deal with some pretty unsavory leaders.
Some of his domestic achievements continue to reverberate. Mr. Carter to diversify the federal judiciary, appointing 57 non-White people and 41 women to the bench. He also pushed through a 1978 law and boosting competition, which made fares more affordable and increased the number of routes offered.
Perhaps the most damage was done to his presidency and his reelection chances by the combination of economic stagnation and inflation, exacerbated by a continuing energy crisis. His appointment, late in his term, of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve was seen as essential to the economic turnaround eventually brought about by Mr. Volckerâs measures over eight years during the Carter and Ronald Reagan administrations â albeit at the cost of a recession that devastated many peopleâs lives.
Many of Mr. Carterâs mistakes were matters of style and temperament. He didnât get along well with the press, and he paid for it; much of the mockery directed at him seems in retrospect overdone. But he contributed to it with a tendency sometimes to overmanage, by misreading how some of his actions would be perceived â as in his demanding resignations from his Cabinet at the height of his troubles â and a strain of what was often seen as self-righteousness, expressed at times in a scolding tone in his public discourse. Characteristically, Mr. Carter would on occasion frankly acknowledge his shortcomings in this regard.
ONLINE:
___
Dec. 30
The Wall Street Journal on the blue state homeless boom
In case you missed last Fridayâs pre-holiday news dump, the Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that homelessness this year hit a record. Add this to President Bidenâs regrettable legacies, though itâs notable that progressive states accounted for most of the increase.
HUDâs annual point-in-time survey found that the number of homeless increased 18% this year and 36% since 2019. Local governments and nonprofits in January counted some 771,480 living in public spaces, shelters or other temporary government-funded housing. Yet the report essentially absolves federal policies of blame.
The agency admits what it calls a ânational affordable housing crisis, rising inflation, stagnating wages among middle- and lower-income householdsââas if these had nothing to do with the trillions of dollars the feds doled out during the pandemic and then on Mr. Bidenâs watch. HUD also faults âthe persisting effects of systemic racism,â âadditional public health crisesâ and natural disasters.
HUD places especially heavy blame on the expiration of pandemic programs, including Democratsâ expanded child tax credit and Mr. Bidenâs illegal eviction moratorium. Landlords did increase rents to compensate for tenants who didnât pay under the eviction ban. But the end of souped-up Covid-era welfare canât explain why there are so many more homeless now than before the pandemic.
One culprit is a surge in migration. New York City told HUD that migrant households accounted for nearly 88% of its increase in homeless living in shelters this year. Chicago reported âthat an influx of new arrivals,â mostly migrants bused and flown from other states, âaccounted for more than 13,600 people in emergency shelters.â
While migrants have also flooded into Florida and Texas, these states seem to have absorbed them far better. Since 2019 the number of homeless has soared in Illinois (15,633), California (35,806) and New York (65,928), versus Texas (2,139) and Florida (3,034). Higher housing costs and unemployment in progressive states make it more difficult for migrants to support themselves.
Restrictive zoning and environmental regulations reduce housing supply and drive up prices. Compare the number of new housing permits issued last year in Texas (232,373) and Florida (193,788), versus California (117,760), New York (48,807) and Illinois (16,863).
New York Cityâs âright to shelterâ policy also encourages migrants to take advantage of government-supported housing, including hotels in midtown Manhattan. But most migrants who canât find work and housing eventually move to places where they can.
Most of the increase in what HUD calls âchronic homelessnessâ owes to mental illness and drug abuse, which the report fails to mention, if you can believe it. This is obvious to anyone who walks past an urban homeless encampment, or for that matter any street in certain neighborhoods in Los Angeles.
Progressives ignore such clear social ills and instead call for more spending on low-income housing. But such âhousing firstâ policies have failed, as demonstrated by the rising number of homeless in progressive states.
HUD spends $72 billion a year, mostly on affordable housing, and progressive states spend billions more each year. California spent $24 billion to reduce homelessness in the last five years, but there are more homeless. The Administration even granted California a waiver to use federal Medicaid funds to help the homeless obtain housing. Meantime, drug rehab centers in the state are closing because of inadequate government reimbursements.
Florida and Texas have taken a more practical and effective approach. They prosecute drug possession and public disorderly conduct as a lever to induce addicts and the mentally ill into treatment as an alternative to jail. This is more humane than leaving the homeless to their own vices on the streets. Alas, progressives prefer the latter.
ONLINE:
___
Dec. 29
The Los Angeles Times gives five reasons to keep the federal tax credit for EVs
President-elect Donald Trumpâs transition team is a $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit that helps consumers afford clean cars while supporting the U.S. auto industry.
Combined with his pledge to roll back vehicle emissions standards that require automakers to sell more electric vehicles, ending the credit would be a big step backward for clean air, the climate, consumers, manufacturing employment and the U.S. economy.
Here are five reasons why the EV tax credit is worth keeping, and why scrapping it would be a counterproductive mistake.
Ending the EV tax credit will raise consumer costs.
EVs are growing in popularity worldwide, but most Americans need help affording plug-in vehicles because they still cost more, on average, than their gas-fueled counterparts. Thatâs the whole idea behind the tax credit, which allows consumers to claim up to $7,500 to offset the purchase price.
The policy is working, making EVs more affordable and competitive with gas-fueled models, especially accounting for the many thousands of dollars EV owners save over the lifetime of their vehicles from lower fuel and maintenance costs.
President Biden expanded the program by adding a $4,000 tax credit for the purchase of a used electric vehicle. Since Jan. 1, buyers have also been able to claim the credit at the time of sale and use it toward their purchase instead of waiting until they file their taxes. Consumers saved over $600 million in just the first three months of the year, an average of $6,900 per vehicle, Electric cars shouldnât be a luxury available only to the wealthy. Keeping the tax credit in place will help these clean, low-maintenance vehicles get within reach of more American families.
Tax incentives are a bipartisan solution.
Presidents of both parties have for nearly two decades supported federal incentives for cleaner vehicles. The tax credit was established in 2005 under George W. Bush as a $3,400 incentive to help offset the purchase of a fuel-efficient hybrid vehicle. In 2008 Bush signed legislation that applied it to plug-in vehicles and expanded the credit to up to $7,500.
The credit continued under President Obama and President Trumpâs first term, during which it , saving consumers and businesses about $5 billion. The credit got a major expansion with the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, and continuing it will save consumers money while helping support good-paying American auto industry jobs.
The EV credit supports American jobs.
The auto industry is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, providing more than 1 million jobs, and its strength is increasingly dependent on its success in making the global transition from its gas-fueled past to an electric-powered future.
The U.S. auto industry and automakers donât want the incoming Trump administration requiring them to sell more EVs. They have understandably cited the need for stability and predictability for the industry, as well as a desire to remain competitive and recoup hundreds of billions of investment in the transition to EVs.
Ending the EV tax credit would also hurt American manufacturing. When the credit was expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act, new rules were also added to restrict eligibility to vehicles that are assembled in North America and meet other restrictions on the sourcing of battery parts and crucial minerals. The aim was to encourage domestic production and reduce the supply chainâs dependence on China. This is no time to halt policies that give American workers a shot at a better future.
Ending the credit hurts Americaâs competitiveness.
Electric vehicles are the future, and that is a reality U.S. automakers are planning for and making huge investments in, including more than $100 billion in new electric vehicle factories and battery plants. But China and other competitors are pouring far more resources into that transition. Automakers, including Ford and General Motors, have set clear goals to phase out gas-fueled cars and transition to all-electric fleets. But ending the policies that support that transition will only cede ground to China, Europe and other rivals.
Trumpâs richest supporter and associate, Elon Musk, has voiced support for ending the EV tax credits, despite owning Tesla, because while it might hurt his business, it would hurt his competitors more. But our nationâs economic future depends on a healthy, robust market for American-made EVs, with diverse offerings at affordable price points. It would be unwise to undermine that.
A less competitive U.S. electric vehicle sector will also make the country more dependent on foreign oil. Oil companies, which supported Trumpâs reelection (he advanced a pro-fossil-fuel agenda during his first term), would be the primary beneficiaries of rolling back pro-EV policies, keeping consumers tied to Big Oil and captive to their volatile gas prices.
We need EVs to fight global warming.
The most important reason for keeping the tax credit, of course, is that it helps the transition to pollution-free vehicles. Transportation is , and we canât effectively fight climate change without slashing emissions that are causing storms, wildfires, heat waves and droughts to worsen.
Even Trump â who has and during his campaign â should be able to see that the future is electric and that American businesses, consumers and workers can either stake out a place in that future or be left behind.
ONLINE:
___
Dec. 27
The Guardian on arms control and the risks of nuclear proliferation
Next November marks 40 years since the US president Ronald Reagan and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that âa nuclear war cannot be won and must never be foughtâ. The statement was striking â not least because their militaries were pouring billions into preparing for an unwinnable conflict.
A year later, at Reykjavik, the two came tantalisingly close to nuclear weapons entirely. That historic chance slipped away over Reaganâs insistence on his unproven âStar Warsâ missile defence system. The moment passed, but its lesson endures: disarmament demands courage â and compromise.
The summit proved a turning point in the cold war. brought down the number of nuclear weapons held by the two countries from 60,000 to roughly 11,000 today. The most recent new strategic arms reduction treaty (New Start), in 2010, capped deployed strategic warheads at 1,550 each. In retrospect, that was a false dawn in nuclear diplomacy. Since George W Bush withdrew the US from the with Moscow in 2002, the risk of a return to an all-out arms race has grown.
On 20 January 2025, Donald Trump will once again hold the keys to a planet-ending arsenal. Mr Trumpâs capricious personality sheds new light on an old question: how much of the terrible responsibility to inflict large-scale nuclear destruction should be invested in a single person? He has the transfer of authority âa very sobering momentâ and âvery, very scaryâ. Reassuring words â until one remembers that he also wondered: âIf we have nuclear weapons, why canât we use them?â Presidential sole authority rightly ensures civilian control over nuclear weapons. But why concentrate such power in just one civilianâs hands?
Close to apocalypse
Without bold action, , the last safeguard of nuclear arms moderation, will expire in February 2026. Mr Trump admires strongmen like Russiaâs Vladimir Putin, who has recklessly threatened nuclear strikes and hinted at restarting tests during the Ukraine war. But it would be a catastrophic mistake if the pair decided not to exercise self-restraint. It would mean that for the first time in more than 50 years, the US and Russia â holders of 90% of the worldâs nuclear weapons â could begin an unconstrained arms race. That dismal decision would send a message to other states, notably , further encouraging their buildup of nuclear stockpiles.
Deterrence is not the only way to think about nuclear weapons. For decades, a conflict involving them has been a byword for Armageddon. The fearful legacy of âthe bombâ can be felt from and Nagasaki to the testing grounds still by nuclear fallout decades later. Such sentiment led to Barack Obama, in 2009, advocating a hopeful vision of a . His speech inspired a coalition of activists, diplomats and developing nations determined to force a global reckoning. Their resistance to the conventional wisdom that nuclear disarmament is unrealistic bore fruit with the , adopted by 122 countries at the UN in 2017. Its message: the only way to ensure nuclear weapons are never used again is to do away with them entirely.
The treaty, championed by the Nobel prize-winning , was a triumph over superpower diplomacy that had long hindered of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Nuclear-armed states are sceptical, if not scornful. But their resistance does not diminish the importance of the 2017 UN vote. It represents not only a moral and legal challenge to the status quo but a reminder that much of the world doesnât accept the logic of mutually assured destruction. This sentiment was amplified this year when , Japanâs atomic and hydrogen bomb survivors group, won the Nobel peace prize for efforts to abolish nuclear weapons.
Eight decades after its test, the nuclear bomb remains â its purpose long obsolete, its danger ever present. Built to defeat Hitler, dropped to end Japanâs imperial ambitions and multiplied to outlast the cold war, nuclear weapons have outlived every rationale for their existence. Arsenals have shrunk, but not enough. The worldâs stockpile remains dangerously large, and efforts to reduce it further appear stalled. This against a geopolitical backdrop of nuclear proliferation, a multipolar and ideologically diverse UN, and the American desire for global pre-eminence. Little wonder that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set its to 90 seconds to midnight â the closest ever to apocalypse.
A shared responsibility
In 2019, Gorbachev , with good reason, that nuclear deterrence keeps the world âin constant jeopardyâ. It is obvious that as long as these weapons exist, the risk of nuclear war cannot be erased. The question is no longer why the bomb remains, but whether humanity can survive it for another 80 years.
This , UN members voted 144-3 to establish an independent scientific panel on the effects of nuclear war. Shamefully, Britain was among the naysayers. Imagination has already outpaced fact. In her book , Annie Jacobson describes how humanity could end in 72 minutes after a North Korean â â attack sparks a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. She writes of thousands of warheads raining down on America, Europe, Russia and parts of Asia, obliterating cities, incinerating human life and leaving billions stripped of life, light and hope. Streets turn molten, winds flatten the land and those who endure suffer wounds so terrible that they no longer look â or act â human.
Ms Jacobsonâs point is that this apocalyptic vision is the logical conclusion of the worldâs current nuclear doctrines. Those that do emerge into the desolation discover what the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev warned decades ago: â .â The devastation is total, offering a future that no one could bear to live through.
Amid historic lows in US-Russian relations, one truth remains: a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Leaders in Moscow and Washington should reaffirm this in the run-up to negotiating significant arsenal reductions as well as real limits on strategic missile defences. Such a statement, simple but profound, would remind the world that Mr Trump and Mr recognise their shared responsibility to prevent global catastrophe. This will not be easy: rising , geopolitical rivalry and mutual mistrust between the countries â especially over Ukraine â loom large over disarmament efforts. But try they must. However bitter their disagreements, Washington and Moscow owe it to humanity to talk about â and act on â avoiding the unthinkable.
ONLINE:
___
Dec. 31
The Boston Globe on skilled worker visas
MAGA hardliners may be apoplectic, but President-elect Donald Trump got it spot on when he embraced the kind of visa program used to bring highly skilled technology workers to this country â an article of faith for the âtech brosâ who supported Trump during his campaign.
Trump has throughout his years in government been firmly on both sides of the skilled immigration issue as represented by his stand on H-1B visas â the type that allow companies to bring skilled technical workers, including engineers, to this country for six-year stints. In fact, the type of visa once held by billionaire Elon Musk, a South African Ă©migrĂ©, who became a US citizen in
Expanding the program, which is currently capped at a piddling plus another 20,000 reserved for those who graduate from US universities with a masterâs degree or higher), is critical to the kind of economic growth and competitiveness that Trump supported all through his campaign. But for populists among his supporters â the ones who see every job that goes to someone not born on these shores as a loss â there is no middle ground. There is only âthemâ vs. âus.â
The current brouhaha over the visas began during Christmas week when MAGA activist criticized Trumpâs choice of tech entrepreneur Sriram Krishnan, who was born in India, to be a senior policy adviser on artificial intelligence, because of his previous stance on immigration. Then she drifted into a racist rant on X that included this gem: âYou know, it was white Europeans who created the American Dream, and we didnât create it so that it could be exploited by pro open border techies.â
Never shy about expressing his own views, Musk shot back on the social media site he bought in , âThe number of people who are super talented engineers AND super motivated in the USA is far too low. If you want your TEAM to win the championship, you need to recruit top talent wherever they may be.â
And then he went off in a more obscene direction.
That spurred Trump adviser to fire back, saying of Musk, âSomeone please notify âChild Protective Servicesâ â need to do a âwellness checkâ on this toddler.â
Trump, who temporarily during his first administration in a misguided effort to stem pandemic-related job losses, attempted to put an end to the internecine warfare, telling the Saturday, âI have many H-1B visas on my properties. Iâve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. Itâs a great program.â
Well, in fact, Trump may have confused the program that brings tech workers into the country with the H-2B program, used to bring unskilled workers in as gardeners or housekeepers, and the H-2A program for agricultural workers. In fact, the Trump Organization properties make of both of those programs.
And frankly thereâs nothing wrong with that either.
Tech companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Muskâs Tesla lead the pack in acquiring thousands of visas for their companies, according to a report by the . The foundation estimates that at least 300,000 potential employees were blocked from obtaining the visas by the cap. Itâs also a system that rewards those companies that know how to work it and that have the resources to deal with the inevitable government red tape.
If Musk and his codirector on Trumpâs effort to cut government waste, Vivek Ramaswamy, do nothing beyond convincing the incoming administration to cut that red tape, reach out beyond this nationâs borders, and invite in those with the talent and the drive to help build this nation, they will have done a great service.
There is also nothing contradictory about supporting a well-organized visa program that helps deliver the workforce America needs and still provides the secure border which Trump has also promised to deliver â Loomerâs ugly rantings notwithstanding.
Giving the United States access to the worldâs best and brightest â who have throughout history contributed to its wealth and its culture â is essential to its future. Trump, by listening to those who know and operate in the real world, can help assure that future.
ONLINE:
The Associated Press
