Today's Editorials: Environmentalists v. Auto Workers
WSJ ... argues that by supporting stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for American-made cars, congressional Democrats "are siding with upscale environmental lobbies over American carmakers and workers." The editors argue that "this debate is a test of who has more clout in today's Democratic Congress -- the men and women who work in American factories, or the affluent greens on both coasts who can afford to pay a premium to own a Prius to indulge their concern about global warming" ... criticizes Bill Clinton for attacking the Bush administration's missile defense plans as a "colossal waste of money." The editors note that former "Presidents once refrained from attacking U.S. foreign policy, especially while overseas or on the eve of a summit with a foreign leader. But Jimmy Carter long ago broke that decorum barrier, and Mr. Clinton is now joining him."
LAT ... urges the Bush administration to take the advice of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and change course in Iraq -- not in September, but now, "before the American presidential campaign season makes domestic political compromise impossible and before the U.S. military itself is gravely wounded" ... the LAT highlights the importance of the Supreme Court's recent decision in a case concerning luxury handbag prices, and argues that the decision's "frivolous subject matter concealed some important implications for U.S. business."
NYT ... urges Congress to pass the Second Chance Act, a law that would provide grants, guidance and assistance to states and localities that are developing programs to reintegrate former inmates into their communities" ... encourages Congress to force drug and medical device companies to disclose the gifts and payments they provide physicians so that Americans can decide for themselves whether "their doctors are choosing costly medicines out of gratitude to the manufacturers rather than for the best medical or economic interests of their patients" ... notes that given the "choice last week between helping local police combat illegal gun trafficking and helping the National Rifle Association protect rogue gun dealers responsible for arming violent criminals," the Senate Appropriations Committee decided to side with the NRA, an "outrageously wrong choice."
WaPo ... admits that the No Child Left Behind Act is "not perfect," but argues that it does provide an "architecture of educational accountability, transparency and equality." The editors add that "Congress should be debating how -- not whether -- to continue this landmark education initiative" ... argues that lost in the current debate over the safety of U.S. food imports is the fact that the majority of imported foodstuffs is "perfectly safe," and endorses the Food and Drug Administration's decision to develop "a plan to revamp its approach to food safety" ... applauds the House's decision last week to allow the District of Columbia to fund its own needle-exchange program to curb the spread of HIV among intravenous drug users.
By Rob Anderson |
July 2, 2007; 9:06 AM ET
Previous: Today's Hot Topics: Segregation, Immigration and the iPhone |
Next: Today's Columns: Why Republicans Should Stick with the Surge
Posted by: Jaspard H. Atkins | July 2, 2007 01:11 PM
If the American Auto Makers, would work to produce cars with better gas mileage, they
would not be in their present trouble of losing market share to the Japanese and Korean Auto makers. Increased market share means more jobs. With gas prices going higher, my next auto purchase is going to be a hybride, with economy in mind rather than performance.
Posted by: Jaspard H. Atkins | July 2, 2007 01:11 PM
The argument that an increase in minimum fleet averages for auto makers will harm domestic domestic manufactures and help foreign companies strikes me as bogus. All cars sold in the U.S. regardless of a company's national origin will have to comply with the same standards; in other words the status quo ante will prevail.
Posted by: Richard Ehrlich | July 2, 2007 01:32 PM
If we intend to save at least some individuals from global warming (that's a big if when a corporation comes before "we the people") then we need to get our act together and start pursuing alternate fuel sources (no ethanol or biofuel, please- they only make it worse; see countless studies.)
Maybe we should stop using cars and use bikes or public transportation. I heard that idea when I was in second grade and it made sense- I thought we were supposed to save the environment, not spend it.
Posted by: freedomnow | July 2, 2007 04:11 PM
It seems like a sophist argument to somehow claim that people who work in factories can't afford to own a Prius- the total cost of owing and driving a car is not merely the vehicle sticker price but includes the cost of oil and gas its uses over its operation lifetime. Can american factory workers somehow pay more for gas than rich environmentalists? Oil supplies are at or have passed peak production, and the only reserves after another decade will be in the volatile middle east. This implies an increasing cost of gasoline and oil- can american factory workers handle increasing costs? Look what happens to bankruptcy rates when interest rates on mortgages rise! Please people, take a long term, more objective view rather than trying ro create some kind of pseudodebate to drive a wedge between populists and environmentalists. And btw, Greenpeace was the one who went into Iraq to replace radioactive containers being used in civilian homes after the war- the US military knew about them but had done nothing. If you look for EVIDENCE, you will find that environmentalism is a movement that embraces the poor, despite any media trashing of it for their own purposes.
Posted by: CJS | July 3, 2007 09:08 AM
It seems like a sophist argument to somehow claim that people who work in factories can't afford to own a Prius- the total cost of owing and driving a car is not merely the vehicle sticker price but includes the cost of oil and gas its uses over its operation lifetime. Can american factory workers somehow pay more for gas than rich environmentalists? Oil supplies are at or have passed peak production, and the only reserves after another decade will be in the volatile middle east. This implies an increasing cost of gasoline and oil- can american factory workers handle increasing costs? Look what happens to bankruptcy rates when interest rates on mortgages rise! Please people, take a long term, more objective view rather than trying to create some kind of pseudodebate to drive a wedge between populists and environmentalists. And btw, Greenpeace was the one who went into Iraq to replace radioactive containers being used in civilian homes after the war- the US military knew about them but had done nothing. If you look for EVIDENCE, you will find that environmentalism is a movement that embraces the poor, despite any media trashing of it for their own purposes.
Posted by: Carolyne Spackman | July 3, 2007 09:12 AM
It seems like a sophist argument to somehow claim that people who work in factories can't afford to own a Prius- the total cost of owing and driving a car is not merely the vehicle sticker price but includes the cost of oil and gas its uses over its operation lifetime. Can american factory workers somehow pay more for gas than rich environmentalists? Oil supplies are at or have passed peak production, and the only reserves after another decade will be in the volatile middle east. This implies an increasing cost of gasoline and oil- can american factory workers handle increasing costs? Look what happens to bankruptcy rates when interest rates on mortgages rise! Please people, take a long term, more objective view rather than trying ro create some kind of pseudodebate to drive a wedge between populists and environmentalists. And btw, Greenpeace was the one who went into Iraq to replace radioactive containers being used in civilian homes after the war- the US military knew about them but had done nothing. If you look for EVIDENCE, you will find that environmentalism is a movement that embraces the poor, despite any media trashing of it for their own purposes.
Posted by: CJS | July 3, 2007 09:38 AM
UAW officials betray members
http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/id107.html
J.L.
Posted by: J.L. | July 10, 2007 10:04 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
If the American Auto Makers, would work to produce cars with better gas mileage, they
would not be in their present trouble of losing market share to the Japanese and Korean Auto makers. Increased market share means more jobs. With gas prices going higher, my next auto purchase is going to be a hybride, with economy in mind rather than performance.