A18


EZ


RE


KLMNO


ABCDE A deal worth doing


ANINDEPENDENTNEWSPAPER EDITORIALS


The Obama-GOP tax compromise is justified — if it’s followed by real action on deficits. T


HEREARETHINGS to dislike in the tax deal reached between PresidentObama and congressional Republicans, and reasons tobenervous about it.But there aremore reasons to support it,which is


whatwe urge lawmakers to do. On the negative side is the agreement to extend


the tax cuts for households making more than $250,000 per year. This is an unwise use of scarce resources. The argument that allowing the top rates to rise would harm small-business job cre- ation has scant basis in reality. As a matter of economic stimulus, relatively fewof those dollars wouldtricklebackintotheeconomy.Evenworseis the capitulation on the estate tax; for the next two years, the first $5 million of an individual estate, andthe first$10millionof a couple’s estate,would be exempt from taxation, and the remainder would be taxed at 35 percent. This is a more generous deal for the wealthy


thanwhat theadministrationhadputonthetable, whichwas to restore the 2009 exemptions of $3.5


reality check S


Congress can help or harm states’ efforts to get a fiscal grip.


TATE AND local government spending stands at 12.6 percent ofU.S. grossdomestic product — the highest share ever. To be sure, this largely reflects the recession,


during which state and local spending has been growing more slowly than it did earlier in the decade while GDP has been falling or stagnant. Still, long-term state and local financial commit- ments, above all for pensions and health-care benefits of public employees, are driving much of the cost. And since states have to balance their budgets, spiraling employee compensation threatens to crowd out the provision of public services such as education, recreation and road maintenance. Getting states, counties and cities back on a


sustainable budget path is primarily their own responsibility. But federal policies can help — or hurt. At the moment, Congress is considering one of each type.Onthe helpful side, a trio of Republi- can members of the House — Paul Ryan (Wis.), Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Devin Nunes (Calif.) — have proposed a bill that would require all state and local governments that issue federally tax-ex- emptbonds to file accurate annual reports of their pension liabilities with the Treasury Department. Public-employee pension funds are notorious


forunderstating their liabilitiesthroughtheuseof vague projections and rosy investment-return assumptions. This proposal would force pension funds to show what they would earn if invested only in super-safe Treasury securities—a reason- able point of comparison given that pension benefits are usually guaranteed by law. And the bill would declare that the federal government is notliable for covering stateandlocalpensionfund shortfalls, another incentive for such plans to enact reforms. Unfortunately, the Senate is about to take up a


Pension


million per individual and $7 million per couple while taxing the rest of an estate at 45 percent. Thesechangesareunnecessaryandexpensiveand increase the risk of making bad policies perma- nent. Whythensupport thedeal?Becauseintheshort


term, allowing the bulk of the tax cuts to expire would threaten an already fragile recovery—and because balancing the noxious aspects of the agreement are smartpolicies thatoffer a realhope of stimulatingtheeconomyandhelpingthosewho badly need the help. The White House secured the renewal of vari-


ous refundable tax credits—translation: govern- ment checks to those who don’t earn enough to owe income taxes—alongwith a 13-month exten- sion of unemployment benefits. These will pro- vide a significantboost tothemost vulnerable and hardesthit by the recession. Second, thedeal adds atemporary,2percentpayroll taxholiday thatwill put money back in workers’ pockets — and, pre- sumably, into the economy.


HouseDemocrats are feelingbruised,but these


deals represent significant concessions extracted by the White House from Republicans. They are likely to prove effective, efficientways to spur the economy, as should the measure to encourage capital investment by businesses. So the compromise is justified—but only if this


moment represents a pivot to the harder work of long-term deficit reduction, as Mr. Obama sug- gested it will. It’s encouraging that leaders could come up with “a solution, even if it’s not 100 percent of what I want or what the Republicans want,” as the president said in Winston-Salem, N.C., Monday. However, this only proves once again thatWashington is capable of compromise when it involves spendingmore and taxing less— in total, adding a staggering $850 billion to the national debt. Filling that hole, and the much deeper one already facing the nation, will be a moredifficult andevenmoreurgent taskthanthis week’s compromise,andtheworkonitmustbegin with the newyear.


TOMTOLES


WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2010


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR dletters@washpost.com


Enter coed dorms, exit morality In the Dec. 4 front-page article “At GWU, coed


quarters becoming option for all,” Jenna Johnson and Daniel de Vise reported that next fall, George Washington University will allow students from the opposite sex to room with one another in university housing facilities. Having lived in all-female dorms that men could


not enter, much less live in, I find this policy ridiculous. Where are the morals? By implementing gender-neutral housing, GWU


is endorsing cohabitation among couples — some- thing studies have shown may increase the likeli- hood that a subsequent marriage will result in divorce. While cohabitation is common these days,


schools should not promote such behavior, especial- ly to incoming freshmen. Students are given the opportunity to make


plenty of choices while attending a university. Choosing to live with someone from the opposite gender should not be one of them. Abbey Meltzer, Rockville


Pushing Mr. Obama from the left Michael Lerner’s Dec. 4 op-ed, “Save Obama—by


running against him,” expressed frustrations with President Obama that I have sometimes feltmyself. But it also demonstrated why we cannot entrust the presidency to uncompromising ideologues of the far right or left. What Mr. Lerner referred to as the “spineless-


ness” of the presidentonmany difficult issues can be also be viewed as a well-meaning chief executive trying hard to work with the other side to reach a compromise and move the country forward, just as Mr. Obama pledged to do during his campaign. Whenone considerswhat has been accomplished


using this strategy in just two years, none of which the writer mentioned, this indictment of the presi- dent seemed grossly unfair. And when Mr. Lerner propounded a wish list that no thinking observer of Washington would give a chance of success, one has to wonder whether he believes that the opposition simply doesn’t exist. Finally, the list of potential 2012 challengers that


Mr. Lerner threw out contained many impressive individuals, but none who could fill the shoes of one of the most intelligent, articulate and hardworking presidents I’ve seen inmy lifetime. Frank Schowengerdt, Alexandria l


I take exception to the op-ed by Rabbi Michael


Lerner encouraging the far left to promote a candi- date to run against President Obama in 2012. Mr. Obama was not elected because of “progressive” proposals on health care, gays in the military, taxing the wealthy and the rest of the liberal agenda. He was elected because of the collapsing economy, an anti-Bush electorate and the view of independents and the majority of Democrats that he was the best choice, with his intellect and calm demeanor, for solving the problems that beset the nation. Progressives might wish to forceMr. Obama left


in order to win primaries, but if they succeed, to the detriment of the country and their chagrin, they will lose the election in 2012.


Lynn Berkeley, Chevy Chase


WikiLeaks’ beneficial side I travel internationally frequentlyonbehalf ofmy


measure that might compound the financial pre- dicament of state and local governments. Pushed by Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would require all states to give police and fire unions “adequate” collective bargaining rights — as determined by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.Unions could sue states deemed “inad- equate” in federal court. Mr. Reid is trying to get thismeasurethrough the lame-duck Congress as a rewardto the firefighters’ union,whichbackedhis reelection campaign. But it also enjoys support from several key Republicans. We share the sponsors’ high regard for first


responders. But this measurewouldtramplelong- standing state autonomy in public-sector labor relations, to no obvious national purpose. Of the 10 states with the lowest violent crime rates in 2008, three did not require collective bargaining for policeandone, Virginia, forbids it for all public employees. The bill could disrupt the law in both Virginia


and Maryland, the latter of which lets counties decide whether and how to bargain with employ- ees. The predictable result would be higher costs foremployeecontracts or legal bills—or both—at precisely the moment when cash-strapped states and localities can least afford them.


Immigration court The Supreme Court takes on an issue that Congress should be settling. T


HESUPREMECOURTcase U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting elucidates two important principles: First, that states will take matters into their own hands


when the federal government fails to act in the face of legitimate concerns;andsecond, thatwhen states and the feds butt heads, the courts will almost invariably be asked to settle the dispute, stripping both sides of control over the outcome. The case, which is scheduled to be heard on


Wednesday and involves a challenge to an Arizona immigration law, should serve as a wake-up call for Capitol Hill and the White House and spur action on much-needed comprehensive immigra- tion reform. The law allows Arizona to revoke the state licenses of employers who hire illegal immi- grants. It also requires Arizona employers to use


TAKING EXCEPTION


‘Fair Game’: Our story, told truthfully Regarding the Dec. 4 editorial “Dirty ‘Game’ ”: We share the hope expressed in the last


sentence that, in writing about our times, “future historians get it right.” Until then, it is clear that The Post will continue its disingenuous efforts to defend the Bush administration’s lies to the American people, itsownsorry role in the rush to war and in the betrayal of the identity of a covert CIA officer. The editorial asserts that the movie “ ‘Fair


Game,’ based on books by Mr. Wilson and his wife, is full of distortions — not to mention outright inventions.” Perhaps the editorial board has not had a chance to read its own newspaper. OnNov. 7,ThePost’s distinguished senior report- ersWalter Pincus and Richard Leiby wrote: “The movie holds up as a thoroughly re-


searched and essentially accurate account — albeit with caveats. It’s told from the point of view of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson,


upon whose separate memoirs the script is based. The CIA and the Bush White House will clearly disagree with its telling of events.” (Em- phasis added.) From the beginning, the Bush administration


sought to deflect attention from its misdeeds by attempting to make the story about the Wilsons. The Post editorial board continues its tradition of denying the truth and refusing to accept responsibility for its own flawed judgment and factual distortions that gave support to the administration’s calculated scheme. When the history is written, the film “Fair


Game” will be seen to have been far more honest and accurate than the collective record of the board.


Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson, Santa Fe, N.M.


The writers are, respectively, a former U.S. ambas- sador and a former CIA operations officer.


the federal E-Verify system to ensure that all employees are eligible to work in this country. Arizona says that this type of licensing power has long been the province of the states. It points to a Supreme Court ruling from 1976 that concluded that states had the right to impose sanctions against employers who hired illegal workers. But that high court ruling came some 10 years


before Congress amended the immigration laws to claim for itself almost exclusive power to regulate immigration, including employer sanc- tions. Although these revisions carved out a licensing exception for the states, the Chamber and its allies make a compelling case that the exceptions were meant only for provisions that covered employerswhoreliedonseasonal agricul- tural workers. Arizona’s law is not limited to this


area, and it is less of a licensing scheme—meant to ensure basic qualifications or requirements — than it is an exercise of traditional law enforce- ment power. The Arizona law’s insistence that employers use the E-Verify system also clashes with the federal government’s determination that participation be voluntary. The Constitution makes clear that federal law


is “the supreme lawof the land” and that it trumps competing state mandates. The federal govern- ment, reflecting the views of the executive and Congress, has argued fiercely for exclusive author- ity over immigration, in part because it has implications for foreign and domestic affairs. If its viewprevails—as it deserves to—it should put this power to good use by enacting immigration reform.


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 Business and advertising:


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


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


The Washington Post Company: 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-6000 DONALD E. GRAHAM, Chairman of the Board


dLetters can be sent to letters@washpost.com. Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer's address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.


Editorial Page Editor JACKSON DIEHL


investment consulting business. Sometimes I will check in with theU.S. Embassy. Rarely, however, is it worth the cab fare, let alone the time, and I think the revelations by WikiLeaks highlight the problem. Embassy staff members seem way too interested


in collecting all kinds of silly gossip and information about inconsequential events and making assump- tions on what the (fill in the blank) of a country are like.


When I ask staff members about this or that


investmentproject,my questions aremet with blank stares. When I ask them to help me set up meetings or use the clout of the United States, they seem to come up with every excuse in the world about why that can’t be done. The cables on WikiLeaks are important for


showing the American people what we pay billions of dollars for — a bunch of silly gossip — and very little action.


Boyd Lewis, Washington


Bad calls on World Cup sites I watched with great disappointment as FIFA


choose Russia and Qatar as the 2018 and 2022 venues for theWorld Cup [“FIFAawards 2022World Cup to tiny Qatar,” Sports, Dec. 3]. Neither of these countries has the high-quality stadiums and infra- structure to host the event, but worse, neither country has the hotels and international airplane routes to support the thousands of visitors who will want to support their country’s team. In 2008, when the English club Chelsea went to


the Champions League Final in Moscow, I planned to attend. Itwasimpossible to get a hotelroomin the city, and the onlyway to get there was to take a flight to a different city and then take an eight-hour train ride.


After the game (which ended after midnight local


time), I would have had to sleep in the train station. The cost would have been more than three times what I was willing to pay. If the game had been held in Western Europe, I would have attended without difficulty. IfMoscow has a shortage of hotel rooms, what must other cities in Russia have? FIFA officials will not have a problem going to


and staying in Russia and Qatar. The loyal team supporters from other countries will have more difficulties than they can imagine. FIFA should expect few foreign visitors in these countries, and a lot of empty seats or deeply discounted tickets to allow locals to attend games. FIFA has made a huge mistake.


Robert Finkelstein, Reston


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  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64