A16


KR


KLMNO


FGHIJ Mr. Fenty’s disconnect


an independent newspaper EDITORIALS


T Why are some D.C. voters eager to toss out a mayor whose achievements they recognize?


HE BIG NEWS from The Post’s poll on the District’s mayoral race is the 17- point advantage that D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray enjoys over Mayor Adrian M. Fenty among those


likely to vote in the Sept. 14 Democratic primary. That’s a testament in part to the smart race Mr. Gray has run, even with fewer resources. What was also remarkable in the survey re- sults was the general consensus of those polled that the District is headed in the right direction and, even more significantly, that Mr. Fenty is re- sponsible for the progress. The number of people who believe the city is headed in the right direction, 56 percent, com- pared with those who don’t, 29 percent, is the highest measured by The Post since 2000 and the second-highest since 1986. Moreover, when asked if Mr. Fenty brought needed change to the city, 67 percent answered “yes.” It is because we agree with this assessment that we endorsed Mr. Fenty’s reelection. We think the record shows that his well-run administration has begun to re- form schools and that it has lowered crime and improved city services across all eight wards. What has happened in the past three years in the District has not occurred under any previous mayor. Mr. Fenty’s predecessor, Anthony A. Wil-


On better terms


New credit card regulations will help consumers and keep companies in check.


Credit CARD Act, which was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama more than a year ago. Among other things, the new rules ban credit card companies from charging fees that are larger than the infraction: If you miss a $20 payment, the maximum penalty is $20. Thus, the finishing touches are on a revamped credit card regulatory structure that will also require issuers to apply any payment over the minimum due to the highest in- terest portion of a customer’s debt and make it harder for companies to market plastic to students under 21. Between 1989 and 2006, total credit card charges increased from $69 billion a year to more than $1.8 trillion. But now, those go-go days are over.


A


Critics call the CARD Act a nanny-state infringe- ment on economic freedom whose negative impact on the economy has only begun to be felt. If credit card issuers can’t recoup the costs of extending credit to more marginal card users, they will have no choice but to raise interest rates on everyone else. And, sure enough, the average rate on credit card debt has risen to 14.7 percent — a post-2001 high — when other interest rates, such as the 30- year home mortgage rate, are falling. No wonder consumer spending is sluggish. It’s another made- in-Washington setback for the recovery. Or is it? The excessive extension of credit to riski- er and riskier segments of the borrowing public was partly responsible for the huge bubble of debt that burst in 2008, bringing on the recession. Most of that was housing-related, but credit cards were also an important factor in building up total U.S. household debt to a peak of 138 percent of dispos- able income just before the crash. Households were inevitably going to have to deleverage with or without the CARD Act. And there are signs that this painful but necessary process is going rela- tively well: Credit card losses are falling faster than the unemployment rate, according to a recent re- port by Moody’s. Meanwhile, the credit card com- panies are back in the black. In short, the consumer-credit business is being put back on a more sustainable basis. And in the new world of the CARD Act, it is less likely that the business can easily return to the days when card is- suers attempted to extend every last dollar of credit to every single borrower they could squeeze into a “risk-based pricing” formula. Yes, all federal limits on credit are, to some extent, arbitrary. And yes, the CARD Act may therefore prevent consumer spend- ing from resuming all of its former status as the en- gine of U.S. economic growth. But it also means that more people will have to save more money be- fore they buy. And that’s hardly the end of the world.


UGUST BROUGHT the phase-in of the last new credit card regulations under the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, also known as the


liams, is rightly credited with getting the city on track — and not fully credited for his successes in, for example, improving health-care delivery to poorer residents. But even he could not pro- duce the kind of results seen during Mr. Fenty’s tenure. Mr. Williams, who didn’t back Mr. Fenty in 2006, is now a supporter, precisely because he recognizes the progress made by the city under Mr. Fenty. The accomplishments are all the more remarkable in tough economic times. Given this record, and the appreciation of it by


a majority of D.C. voters, it’s amazing that Mr. Fenty managed to squander so much of the pub- lic goodwill that was reflected in his sweep of ev- ery D.C. precinct four years ago. How this hap- pened is no secret. Like many D.C. residents, we have long wondered why he would let things like silly fights with the D.C. Council, unnecessary government secrecy or shutting out community voices jeopardize the good work being done by his administration, and we have said so. The question for voters is whether those flaws are serious enough to justify gambling with the city’s continuing progress. Mr. Gray argues that he can continue the city’s upward trajectory without the rancor and with more inclusiveness. Mr. Fenty argues that part of his ability to get re- sults flows from his take-charge, cutting-


through-the-bureaucracy, don’t-take-no-for-an- answer style of governing. The mayor didn’t consult as broadly as the


city’s mandarins expect when appointing people such as, say, Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier. But his key appointments have been almost universally top-class and results-oriented. While Mr. Gray has received the endorsements and financial backing of public employees unions and commu- nity groups, Mr. Fenty was elected essentially un- beholden to any special interests. You didn’t see the teachers union, for example, spending its dollars on radio ads for his candidacy, as it is now doing for Mr. Gray. Would Mr. Gray have the toughness to reward his supporters when appro- priate but to say no when that is in the public interest? The candidates are scheduled to meet Wednes-


day at noon in a debate sponsored by The Post. We hope they move beyond questions of style and on to an examination of their records — and, even more, of what each promises to do in the next four years. Who has the clearer set of priori- ties? Are promises of new programs backed by credible explanations of where the money will come from? These are the kinds of questions vot- ers should be asking during the remaining dozen days of this election season.


TOM TOLES


WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2010


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR dletters@washpost.com


The mosque and other divisive issues Charles Krauthammer can’t seriously believe that


the United States has ever been governed by or was created on the proposition that the majority is always right, as he suggested repeatedly in his Aug. 27 op-ed column, “The last refuge of a liberal.” Take California’s Proposition 8, for example. Mr.


Krauthammer said that “a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy,” and he expressed indignation at the thought that the majority who oppose the placement in Lower Man- hattan of an Islamic center (which he persisted in calling a mosque) could be wrong. It is precisely this kind of mobocratic pandering


that the Founders took pains to counter by enshrin- ing in the Constitution the notion that all citizens of the United States have certain unalienable rights and that no matter how large the majority might be and how much it may wish to do so, it cannot abridge any citizen’s exercise of those rights. Mr. Krauthammer knows this, so it was doubly dis- appointing to see him appeal to the worst in human nature instead of the best.


BRUCECARNES, Springfield 


I am tired of the rhetorical stink bombs being hurled across The Post’s opinion page by pundits on both ends of the political spectrum. Cases in point are columns addressing the Great Mosque Debate by Eugene Robinson [“Whining on the right,” Aug. 24], Richard Cohen [“The mosque cop-out,” Aug. 24] and Charles Krauthammer [op-ed, Aug. 27]. By launching an ad hominem attack on the entire


“American right,” Mr. Robinson undercut his other- wise plausible argument that some conservatives are demonizing the Muslim religion to gain political ad- vantage. It’s hard to get your opponents to take you seriously when you start out by calling them “loud- mouths,” “fraidy-cats” and “professional victims.” Serious discussion was banished entirely by Mr.


Krauthammer in favor of an across-the-board con- demnation of “liberalism.” Support for the Lower Manhattan mosque is summarily dismissed as yet another example of the “undisguised contempt for the great unwashed” harbored by an “arrogant elite.” This sort of emotional, knee-jerk rejection of an op- posing point of view makes it awfully hard to get a se- rious attempt at compromise going. Mr. Cohen’s “my way or the highway” attitude


didn’t even allow the possibility of settling the mosque issue through good-faith give and take. He rigidly asserted that “the difference between compro- mise and defeat is nonexistent” in this matter. Each of these columnists, in his own way, dis-


couraged calm and reasoned discourse regarding the solution of a problem of immediate concern. WILLIAM SHAPIRO, McLean 


In his Aug. 27 column, Charles Krauthammer of-


fered negative generalizations and accusations about “liberals” — referring to their “promiscuous charges of bigotry” and saying that they give “no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument” and resort “reflexively to the cheapest race baiting,” without citing as an example one statement from any so-called liberal person or organization. Surely with liberals running amok and using such baseless and terrible rhetoric, he could have cited a few examples to better make his case. He stated also that liberals have lost the debate on


every issue he cited in the court of public opinion by often lopsided margins, without citing any polling data. My reading of the polls on the issues he listed is that public opinion is much more nuanced than he acknowledged.


By his polemical, over-the-top attack on liberals in


general, Mr. Krauthammer practiced what he con- demned — giving no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. PATRICKBOGENBERGER, Arlington


A one-sided Mideast message Regarding George F. Will’s Aug. 26 op-ed column,


“The Mideast mirage”: Mr. Will displayed a defiantly one-sided opinion


A flood of security peril There’s a strategic reason for stepping up Pakistan relief efforts.


T


HE FLOODWATERS that have displaced 20 million Pakistanis and submerged nearly a fifth of Pakistan’s land are exact- ing a terrible toll on an already long-


suffering people. That would be reason enough for the United States to be generous and compas- sionate in its response. But the humanitarian in- terest is heightened by Pakistan’s centrality to America’s national security interests. The Obama administration must seize this chance to deepen and broaden what is already a large commit- ment, lest Pakistan become even more of a breed- ing ground for terrorism. To be sure, the government of Pakistan is a complicated partner — whether in combating al- Qaeda and the Taliban or in delivering foreign aid to its own people. Corruption is rampant, and public trust in an officialdom whose presence is barely felt in many of the affected provinces is


low. Not surprisingly, Pakistan’s reputation for inefficiency and graft has deterred foreign do- nors in its hour of need. The challenge for the Obama administration and other governments is to develop new mecha- nisms — similar to those, perhaps, that the Unit- ed Nations has devised for rebuilding Haiti after its earthquake in January — that would enable relief and reconstruction with maximum trans- parency and honesty. If this is done successfully, the Pakistani government and its international allies, the United States included, could gain prestige in the eyes of a skeptical people. The al- ternative is a vacuum that extreme Islamist groups are already attempting to fill. The American people must be there when the floodwaters recede. The moral justification is compelling enough. But the strategic rationale is real, too.


LOCAL OPINIONS 3Join the debate at washingtonpost.com/localopinions


Fix schools’ ‘creativity gap’ and achievement will follow


The Aug. 27 front-page article “Progress stalls in closing gaps in D.C. schools” indicated that the achievement gap between white and African American students is growing again in the city. The article highlights a serious problem — but what about solutions? As a teacher and education reformer, I have ob-


served a critical precursor to the achievement gap: the creativity gap. The vast majority of pro- grams aimed at low-achieving students rely heavi- ly on rote learning, are teacher- or textbook- driven (rather than student-driven), and offer few opportunities for students to figure out how to solve complex problems. Many even script teach- ers’ every word and interaction with students. When children are denied the opportunity to


develop their skills as creative and critical think- ers, it is not surprising that their academic achievement suffers. It’s time to embrace an educational approach


that integrates creativity and rigor into every as- pect of school. Many successful examples of this kind of teaching already exist, in schools with children from all races and all levels of the socio- economic spectrum. Perhaps programs aimed at closing the


achievement gap will devise a way to focus on re- ducing the creativity gap as well. All it would take is a little imagination. ALETAMARGOLIS,Washington


The writer is executive director of the Center for Inspired Teaching.


ABCDE


EUGENE MEYER, 1875-1959 • PHILIP L. GRAHAM, 1915-1963 KATHARINE GRAHAM, 1917-2001


BOISFEUILLET JONES JR., Chairman KATHARINE WEYMOUTH, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer News pages:


MARCUS W. BRAUCHLI Executive Editor


RAJU NARISETTI, Managing Editor ELIZABETH SPAYD, Managing Editor


SHIRLEY CARSWELL Deputy Managing Editor


Editorial and opinion pages: FRED HIATT


Deputy Editorial Page Editor


STEPHEN P. HILLS, President and General Manager KENNETH R. BABBY, Chief Revenue Officer/GM, Digital


Business and advertising: Vice Presidents


ROGER ANDELIN ......................................................................................... Technology BENJAMIN C. BRADLEE .................................................................................... At Large USHA CHAUDHARY..................................................................... Finance & Admin/CFO JAMES W. COLEY JR. ......................................................................................Production L. WAYNE CONNELL ......................................................................... Human Resources LEONARD DOWNIE JR. ...................................................................................... At Large WENDY EVANS ............................................................................................. Advertising GREGG J. FERNANDES .................................................................................Circulation JOHN B. KENNEDY ............................................................................................... Labor ERIC N. LIEBERMAN ......................................................................................... Counsel CHRISTOPHER MA ................................................................................... Development STEVE STUP ..................................................................................... Digital Advertising


1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-6000


The Washington Post Company: DONALD E. GRAHAM, Chairman of the Board


Editorial Page Editor JACKSON DIEHL


on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It seems that that he views only Israeli attempts at peace to be legiti- mate. He pointed out the examples of “West Bank Palestinian television incessantly inculcating anti- Semitism and the denial of Israel’s right to exist,” “cigarette lighters sold on the West Bank [that] show, when lit, the World Trade Center burning” and “a square [that] was recently named in the hon- or of Dalal Mughrabi,” a terrorist. These are clearly displays of hatred that must cease. But in vilifying one side of the conflict — the Palestinians — and victimizing the other — the Is- raelis — Mr. Will did a disservice to both. He refused to see the shades of gray in the situation. Hatred, an- ger and violence can, and have, come from both sides of the conflict. But so can peace, under- standing and cooperation. Mr. Will, and others like him who wish to see an easy game of bad guy-good guy in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, do a disservice to what should be everyone’s goal of peace in the Middle East. KATHERINE PROTIL, Silver Spring


Adopted and much adored


Michael Gerson’s Aug. 27 op-ed column, “Miracles from abroad,” was beautifully written. It so very well evoked the gratitude, awe and instantaneous love that is involved in international adoption. We are the proud grandparents of five. Two of our


grandchildren were brought to our family through international adoption; they


were orphans in


Ukraine. The 6-year-old girl and her 4-year-old bio- logical brother, along with their new mom and dad, arrived at Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport to find a waiting room filled with extended family and friends. The glint of amuse- ment in our new granddaughter’s eyes will long be remembered. She tightly held her new American Girl doll and chatted away in Russian, and we all pretended to fully agree with what she was saying. “Yes, yes!” we would say and envelop her in our arms.


One of the best moments was when our new


grandson was wildly hugged and greeted by his 2- year-old cousin, who broke away from his mother, breached airport security rules by entering the “exit only” ramp and loudly yelling, “Welcome, Ryan!” We were so thankful that airport security did not arrest the 2-year-old. Shortly thereafter, the boys were sit- ting in a corner of the airport luggage area playing with toy cars. Family forever. Two years have passed. The adopted children’s English is perfect, their lives are full of laughter, and they are very loved. KATHIE AND PAUL SCHIRF, Odenton


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58