Editorials from Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and other newspapers

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

Aug. 2

The Washington Post says high interest rates could be killing job gains

The post-pandemic hiring surge is over. Job seekers in nearly every industry are having a harder time finding employment. As the latest jobs report showed on Friday, the unemployment rate has ticked up to 4.3 percent. Though that is low by historical standards, it's a significant jump from 3.5 percent a year ago. More than 7.1 million people - each of them requiring housing, food and security - are now out of work. That's up by more than 1 million from last summer. Americans without college degrees have been especially hard-hit.

Since the post-pandemic inflation spike, the Federal Reserve has elevated interest rates to restrain price increases so rapid they poison the economy. For a year, rates have been near 5.5 percent. Miraculously, the big trade-off of high rates leading to sluggish growth and unemployment failed to manifest. No longer. With inflation close to its 2 percent target, the Fed now needs to pivot back to supporting the labor market, finally lowering interest rates at its next meeting in September and likely again later this year.

Fed officials still have time to prevent a downturn. Economists rely on what's known as the Sahm Rule to gauge when a recession arrives. It's based upon the observation that when the unemployment rate rises significantly in a year, it has always heralded a U.S. recession. The July unemployment numbers were high enough to trigger the Sahm Rule. But there's reason to hope this time is different. Companies are not laying people off, just reducing their hiring after they took on new workers rapidly in 2022 and 2023. Firms appear to be in wait-and-see mode, which is why Fed action this fall could make a decisive impact. The real estate and manufacturing sectors, for example, could pick up quickly since they tend to be the most sensitive to interest rates.

The Fed and other policymakers need to see the wider context. Economists have shifted profoundly their understanding of sustained tight labor markets and their benefits to society. For years, economists believed that a 5 percent unemployment rate was about the lowest possible in the United States. (There will always be some people looking for jobs, even in a good economy.) In 2016, a top Fed official called that level " basically full employment." And yet the U.S. economy has now seen at least two extended periods of unemployment at 4.0 percent or less. There was a two-year stretch from March 2018 until the pandemic and then 30-month stretch from December 2021 through this May. The benefits have been extraordinary - especially for women, people of color, people without college degrees and Americans with disabilities. People not only got hired; many say they were able to get on a career path that will help them for years to come.

These periods of low unemployment have led many companies and government agencies to drop college-degree requirements for many jobs. This has opened up career prospects for the 119 million Americans who have no college degree of any kind. The trend of more flexible jobs - including work-from-home and part-time shifts, even in factories - have particularly helped women with kids.

Having a job is about more than a paycheck. It brings dignity. New research from economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues finds that children raised in neighborhoods where most people are employed have better life outcomes for decades to come. Even if their own parents aren't employed, they can see what is possible by looking at their relatives and their friends' parents. The study looked at data on 57 million people born between 1978 and 1992 and found "large effects" for children who move into communities where employment is growing.

All of this is why it's concerning to see signs that the labor market is turning, with unemployment rising and hiring slowing sharply outside of health care and government. That's a major change from last year, when almost every sector was hiring robustly. It's notable that the unemployment rate for Americans without a high school diploma is now 6.7 percent (up from 5.3 percent a year ago). For people who graduated from high school but not college, the unemployment rate has shot up to 4.6 percent (from 3.3 percent a year ago).

"I would not like to see material further cooling in the labor market," Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell said on Wednesday. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. A soft landing is still within reach, but the Fed will have to take action to secure it.

ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/02/unemployment-rise-warning-sign-fed/

___

Aug. 6

The Wall Street Journal on what the selection of Tim Walz as VP means about Kamala Harris

Donald Trump did Democrats a favor by choosing a running mate who reinforced his base rather than reaching out to swing voters. Kamala Harris has now returned the favor in selecting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the progressive favorite, as her pick for Vice President.

The choice that scared Republicans was popular Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, a swing state crucial to an Electoral College victory. But Mr. Shapiro, who is Jewish, was the target of an extraordinary and nasty campaign against him by the Democratic left. He was too pro-Israel and had upset unions by showing rhetorical support for school vouchers.

Ms. Harris appears to have wilted under this pressure, perhaps fearing protests at the Democratic convention in Chicago this month. She went with Mr. Walz instead, and there goes Mr. Trump's hope of flipping the decisive swing state of Minnesota. That's a joke, since the Land of 10,000 Liberals has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1976.

Mr. Walz's progressive bona fides will please Sen. Bernie Sanders and the teachers unions. But his governing record will be fodder for Mr. Trump. And picking him is a bad omen about the ability, or even willingness, of Ms. Harris to defy her party's left.

Mr. Walz, age 60, has a plain-spoken personality and an appealing Midwestern background. He joined the Army National Guard at 17, graduated from a state college, and became a high-school teacher and football coach. He was elected to Congress in 2006 from a rural district, and one selling point to Ms. Harris is that he might appeal to Trump voters.

But as Governor since 2019 Mr. Walz has moved Minnesota sharply to the left. He still wears a baseball cap and work jacket, but since Democrats gained control of the entire Legislature in 2023, he's governed more like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, including:

• Increasing taxes, though Minnesota already has the fifth-highest top income-tax rate among the states, 9.85% at $193,000 of earnings for a single filer. Mr. Walz added a 1% surtax on net investment income above $1 million, while reducing deductions, and the Governor wanted more.

Minnesota is a rare state that still levies a death tax, up to 16%, on top of the federal 40% rate, which is one reason the state is losing taxpayers to better climes.

• Making an estimated 81,000 illegal immigrants in the state eligible for driver's licenses, along with health insurance through the MinnesotaCare public marketplace.

• Funding "the North Star Promise Program, which provides free college for students with a family income under $80,000," including illegal immigrants.

• Creating a state system for paid family and medical leave, capped at a combined 20 weeks a year and funded by a 0.88% payroll tax.

• Mandating that public utilities generate 80% carbon-free electricity by 2030, ramping up to 100% by 2040. He's a fervent believer in "climate action."

• Subsidizing electric vehicles by "requiring EV charging infrastructure within or adjacent to new commercial and multi-family buildings," as the Governor's office bragged.

• Passing one of the nation's most permissive abortion statutes that has essentially no limits and no age consideration for minors.

• Declaring Minnesota to be a "trans refuge," with a law saying that the state will ignore a "court order for the removal of a child issued in another state because the child's parent or guardian assisted the child in receiving gender-affirming care in this state."

• Establishing automatic voter registration and letting Minnesotans sign up for a permanent absentee ballot option.

No wonder Mr. Sanders is a fan. Yet now the vetting will begin in earnest. Mr. Walz's response to the 2020 riots, after George Floyd's killing, will be scrutinized in particular, as poor areas in Minneapolis burned and many business owners lost everything.

Did he hesitate to send in troops? Why is Minnesota losing residents to other states? Republicans are circulating remarks by Mr. Walz acknowledging what he calls his white privilege and urging his party: "Don't ever shy away from our progressive values. One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness."

Despite her four years as Vice President, Ms. Harris is largely unknown to most voters. Democrats want to keep it that way, hoping she can dodge media interviews and ride a gauzy theme about "the future" in a campaign sprint of a mere 100 days.

But her choice of a running mate is her first presidential-level decision, and it confirms the views she expressed in 2019 when she ran for the White House as a left-wing Democrat. Choosing Mr. Walz suggests that the real Kamala Harris is the one who wants Medicare for All and to eliminate cash bail. Voters who don't like Mr. Trump might decide he's still better than signing up for that.

ONLINE: https://www.wsj.com/articles/tim-walz-kamala-harris-vice-president-2024-election-donald-trump-minnesota-josh-shapiro-02c3b85b?mod=editorials_article_pos1

___

July 31

The Los Angeles Times on SCOTUS term limits and ethics reforms

In an address to the nation last week about abandoning his reelection campaign, President Biden mentioned Supreme Court reform as one of the priorities he would pursue in the remainder of his term. On Monday, Biden fleshed out that commitment with proposals that deserve - but aren't receiving - bipartisan support.

In an initiative endorsed by Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Biden proposed three changes: term limits for members of the Supreme Court, who now serve until they choose to retire; a binding and enforceable code of conduct for justices; and a "No One Is Above the Law" constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would essentially overrule the court's disastrous decision granting immunity from criminal prosecution to Donald Trump and future former presidents for their "official acts."

Biden's proposals would benefit a court that has undermined its credibility with major decisions in which Republican appointees vote one way and Democratic appointees another. Further damage to the court's image has been inflicted by a selection process for justices that has been marred by naked partisanship and the use of court appointments to engineer desired results. Trump, who said in 2016 that he would appoint "pro-life" justices, has boasted that "I was able to kill Roe vs. Wade," the landmark abortion rights ruling that was overruled in 2022 in a decision joined by his three appointees.

Term limits would bring stability to the selection of justices. Biden's proposal would have presidents appoint a justice every two years to an 18-year term. It's ridiculous that Trump was able to appoint three life-tenured justices in a single term. He was abetted, of course, by Senate Republicans who refused to act on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, citing the upcoming presidential election - and then rushed to confirm Trump's choice of Amy Coney Barrett in late 2020, another presidential election year.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) has introduced the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act under which justices after 18 years would become "senior justices" who could pursue other duties and sit in temporarily when a vacancy occurred on the high court. Some legal experts, however, believe that term limits would require a constitutional amendment. By whatever route they are achieved, term limits make sense. (It's likely that justices now serving would have to be exempt from term limits.)

Biden's proposal for an enforceable ethics code for Supreme Court justices follows controversies involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The justices last year finally adopted a code of conduct, but it lacks an enforcement mechanism. There are several options for putting teeth in the code. Last week, Justice Elena Kagan suggested that an outside panel of respected judges could scrutinize code violations.

Finally, Biden's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to rein in presidential immunity faces considerable hurdles. But the court invited such an effort with its reckless ruling this month on presidential immunity that could let Trump off the hook for some charges related to his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and embolden future presidents.

Predictably, Republicans oppose court reform. Trump has complained on social media that Democrats are calling for "an illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court." House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Biden's proposals are "dead on arrival " in the Republican-controlled House.

Biden and Harris shouldn't let such rejection deter them from educating the public about the value to the country of Supreme Court reform; it shouldn't be presented primarily as a way for Democrats to achieve more influence over the court. (The way to ensure more Democratic-appointed justices in the near term is to elect Harris in November.) The changes would have benefits for both parties, because it ensures that luck doesn't dictate which party gets appointments.

The Supreme Court plays a vital role in this constitutional republic, but its continued legitimacy depends on a perception by the public that the justices aren't politicians in black robes. Biden's proposals offer a path to addressing that crisis of credibility.

ONLINE: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-07-31/biden-supreme-court-reform-term-limits

___

Aug. 5

The Minneapolis Star Tribune on the need for a federal response to 'Deepfakes'

The stakes of November's election are real.

Campaign communications should be, too.

Yet in this era of ever-accelerating artificial intelligence, the manipulation of audio and/or video - and, most profoundly, the manipulation of voters - is an existential threat to our democracy.

And it's not enough to depend on self-regulation from media entities. That much was clear when, on July 26, X (Twitter) owner Elon Musk reposted a manipulated campaign ad from Vice President Kamala Harris that had her making damaging statements about outgoing President Joe Biden (including referring to "his senility") as well as her own merits as his potential replacement (including that she is a "diversity hire").

While the original altered video contained a disclaimer that it was a parody, the version Musk reposted to his 192 million followers did not. Instead, in what experts say is a clear violation of X's (and thus Musk's) policies, he wrote "This is amazing" and added laughing emojis on his repost. It wasn't until days later that Musk - who has endorsed Harris' opponent, former President Donald Trump - amended his repost to indicate it was a parody.

Amazing, indeed. But not in the way Musk means. And it's no laughing matter.

"This video illustrates the kind of problem that's going to become commonplace unless we put protective rules in place," Robert Weissman, co-president at Public Citizen, a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization, told an editorial writer. Noting the technical quality of the altered video, Weissman said that "we can expect convincing deepfakes that will mislead, deceive and defraud voters going forward and potentially create electoral chaos."

Twenty states, including Minnesota, have codified rules about deepfakes, said Weissman. But, he said, Washington needs to get more aggressive. "The states are acting. But we really need federal action."

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat, agrees. "Democracy functions on information so voters can make a decision," but the basis for that decision "gets upended and turned on its head" through deepfakes and other manipulation, she told an editorial writer.

While the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission and the uneven protocols of social-media self-regulation offer some help, clear and codified laws are needed, Klobuchar said.

Accordingly, she's worked across the aisle to get Republicans to boost two bills. The "AI Transparency in Elections Act," co-sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would "require disclaimers on ads with images, audio or video that are substantially generated by artificial intelligence." The bill also requires that the FEC address violations quickly.

The second bill, co-sponsored by her Democratic colleagues Chris Coons of Delaware and Michael Bennet of Colorado, plus Republican Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Susan Collins of Maine, is the "Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act," with the intent to "ban the use of artificial intelligence to generate materially deceptive content falsely depicting federal candidates in political ads to influence federal elections."

Last week, Klobuchar took to the Senate floor to try to pass these bills with unanimous consent. Despite the dangers to both sides of the aisle, let alone democracy and the DNA of our country, the bills did not pass. She'll press on when Congress reconvenes after the August recess.

That's good news for every American. As technological transformations and the malevolence of homegrown and offshore actors evolve, laws to protect democracy need to evolve as well.

ONLINE: https://www.startribune.com/deepfakes-require-a-real-federal-response/600818426

___

July 31

The Guardian on the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and its potential impact both in the Middle East and globally

Dim hopes that a ceasefire in Gaza might be in view have been extinguished, for now at least, with the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Israel has not claimed responsibility for killing the political leader of Hamas, but Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was swift to vow vengeance.

It came hours after Israel said it had killed Fuad Shukr, Hezbollah's top military commander, in an airstrike in southern Beirut, blaming him for the attack that killed 12 children in the occupied Golan Heights last week. The militant group did not immediately confirm his death; ambiguity leaves it room for manoeuvre too. Add in recent strikes on the Yemeni port of Hodeidah, one day after Israel pledged revenge for a Houthi drone attack, and a pattern is clear.

But if Israel believes it is re-establishing deterrence, more deaths will surely result. They will come first in Gaza, though they are unlikely to be confined to there. Qatar, a mediator, was quick to point out that ceasefire talks are unlikely to prosper when the negotiator is dead. The international criminal court's chief prosecutor recently issued a warrant against Haniyeh on war crimes charges. He was nonetheless seen as relatively more pragmatic than its military leader, Yahya Sinwar, and other hardliners in Hamas. A ceasefire and hostage release deal would not guarantee de-escalation, but it cannot happen without one.

Iran will not feel that it can ignore this attack, made shortly after Haniyeh attended the inauguration of its new president, Masoud Pezeshkian. Instead of projecting its strength with the grand gathering of its allies, Tehran has been humiliated by a glaring intelligence failure at a time of heightened security.

At other crisis points over the last 10 months - such as in April, when Iran launched its first ever direct military attack on Israel after the assassination of one of its commanders in Damascus - an all-out regional war has been avoided. The players have calculated their responses. That should not offer false reassurance; rather, each incident increases the risks. Each move may be calibrated, yet they are set at a higher notch than before. Look further afield and the US has just carried out a strike in Iraq in response to recent attacks on its bases by Iran-linked militias.

Meanwhile, Israel has had to deploy soldiers to guard detention centres because it cannot trust the police to fend off the far right, thanks to Mr Netanyahu's extremist coalition partners. Knesset members and ministers were among the mob who broke into a base in protest after nine soldiers were arrested on suspicion of the torture and sexual abuse of a Palestinian detainee. That kind of internal breakdown, noted the analyst Dahlia Scheindlin, was welcome news for Israel's enemies.

A year ago, with former political and military leaders from the US, Israel and European countries, a Tel Aviv thinktank held a war game that ended in a massive regional conflict. One organiser concluded: "There is no good mechanism for sending messages via military force; the messages arrived twisted." But with the US preoccupied by its domestic issues, and Europe by Ukraine, diplomatic efforts are hobbled too. A regional conflagration is not inevitable. Those involved understand the disastrous consequences it would hold for them, whoever won. It can and must be averted. Yet each attack and counterattack creates a new path towards one and piles obstacles along the exit route.

ONLINE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/31/the-guardian-view-on-the-killing-of-a-hamas-leader-the-middle-east-circles-the-abyss

___