Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

___

Oct. 18

The Washington Post on taxpayers subsidizing flood insurance

Hurricane Helene likely caused more than $30 billion worth of damage. Less than two weeks later, Hurricane Milton inflicted almost $50 billion more. With six weeks left in this hurricane season, the Small Business Administration’s disaster loan program is already out of money. And more tropical storms are swirling over the Atlantic. Who pays for all of this?

Because private home insurers generally find this sector of the business unprofitable, the federal National Flood Insurance Program shoulders the burden of providing homeowners inundation coverage — and it has problems. The NFIP is managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency — the same body fighting misinformation and dodging vigilantes as it tries to distribute much-needed aid to the victims of Helene and Milton. The program provides nearly $1.3 trillion in coverage to more than 5 million policyholders. It’s funded by the premiums collected from policyholders but borrows from the U.S. treasury when claims it’s obligated to pay outpace revenue, as is often the case. Congress canceled $16 billion in NFIP debt in 2017; since then, the program has borrowed billions more from taxpayers.

If Hurricanes Helene and Milton epitomized how destructive hurricanes are becoming in a warming world, the NFIP’s financial woes will only worsen. And yet Congress has made no fundamental reforms to the program since its inception nearly six decades ago. That cannot continue.

Congress created the NFIP when private insurers retreated from the flood insurance market after the first storm to cause $1 billion in losses — Hurricane Betsy in 1965. The government stepped in with two conditions, which were intended to avoid “moral hazard,” the phenomenon whereby insuring against a particular risk encourages more people to take it. It required communities to adopt land-use policies that discouraged development in flood-prone areas, and it mandated that homeowners pay “actuarially sound” premiums. Moral hazard took hold anyway, as developers and other real estate interests gamed the system to suppress premiums and permit building in low-lying areas and beachfronts exposed to storms.

The upshot is that FEMA flood hazard maps that determine coverage today rely on outdated information so inaccurate that more than 40 percent of NFIP claims made from 2017 to 2019 were for properties outside official flood hazard zones or in areas the agency had not mapped at all.

Heavily lobbied by the interested industries, Congress has taken little action to rectify these long-standing issues, which have been festering for decades. Since the end of fiscal 2017, it has enacted 31 short-term NFIP reauthorizations, including the most recent extension through Dec. 20. The one attempt at genuine reform in recent history — the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 — would have ended subsidized rates for second homes and properties that repeatedly flooded. After Hurricane Sandy, however, coastal-state representatives reversed even these modest improvements.

Despite congressional inaction, FEMA took one step in the right direction on its own by implementing its Risk Rating 2.0 pricing methodology. The agency now uses data from private insurers to charge policyholders rates based on variables that more accurately gauge flood risk. But to be solvent and continue providing coverage to homeowners, the NFIP needs larger-scale reforms that require legislative action.

Ideally, modern data collection and risk mapping should enable private insurers to resume issuing flood insurance rather than leave the business entirely to the government. In the likely event that doesn’t happen, Congress should at least reinstate the 2012 law’s bans on subsidized premiums for second homes and properties that have been rebuilt multiple times. As climate change raises risks to more areas, investing in updated flood maps would also bring a more fitting geographic region under the NFIP’s purview. That, in turn, would enable stronger enforcement of building standards and tougher flood-risk building requirements. And even if private industry didn’t offer policies directly to consumers, more accurate pricing would help the NFIP appeal to private insurers, which might then share some of the risk by offering “reinsurance” — essentially, insurance protecting insurers, in this case NFIP, from high costs.

Still, premiums greatly lag behind risk assessments. Congress should enable FEMA to build on the Risk Rating 2.0 pricing model, adjusting rates to reflect actual risk. Yes, more accurate pricing might raise some homeowner’s premiums. But this necessary step will help the program become fiscally stable and provide coverage in the coming years. It’s simply unfair to ask the entire population to provide deep subsidies for properties that, by definition, only a portion of the population can occupy and enjoy.

ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/18/flood-insurance-hurricane-helene-milton/

___

Oct. 18

The Wall Street Journal on how to fix the Secret Service

A report issued Thursday on the assassination attempt against Donald Trump this summer in Butler, Pa., comes to an alarming conclusion about the Secret Service’s shortcomings. In the absence of “fundamental reform,” it says, “another Butler can and will happen again.” Will that sobering assessment help to prompt real changes, and fast?

The 52-page report was written by a bipartisan panel appointed under the Department of Homeland Security. This inquiry into the Butler shooting included 58 interviews and 7,000 documents. It goes through, in detail, the failures on the ground. The roof from which the gunman fired had been deemed part of the “outer perimeter,” traditionally staffed by state and local police, not the Secret Service.

Communication between these agencies was a muddle. About 20 minutes before Mr. Trump took the stage, Secret Service personnel were made aware of a “suspicious person” who had been using a rangefinder, and police were trying to locate him for questioning. “The leadership of the Trump detail—those who were in closest proximity to him and tasked with managing his personal movements—were never informed,” the panel says.

The report also makes broader criticisms of the Secret Service’s culture, including “a pattern of undertraining”; an attitude of “doing more with less,” which is “inconsistent” with its no-fail mission; “an overreliance on assigning personnel based on categories (former, candidate, nominee)” instead of individual risk assessments; and a lack of auditing and “continuous improvement” mechanisms.

The panel says new money would help, “but an influx of funds, without more, will not address the problems.” It has recommendations for better communications and planning, while suggesting new leadership recruited from outside the agency. The report also argues that the Secret Service should shed responsibility for investigating financial crimes, so it can be “hyperfocused” on its most vital task.

“There is simply no excuse to need to ‘do more with less’ concerning protection of national leaders,” the panel says. “Unless and until those responsibilities are fulfilled, no resources (funds or time) should be allocated to other missions that are not centrally related to the protective function.” After Butler, that’s an idea that should be taken seriously.

ONLINE: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-butler-assassination-attempt-report-secret-service-4d6e68fa?mod=editorials_article_pos7

___

Oct. 17

The Guardian says Israel's killing of Yahya Sinwar presents an opportunity for a ceasefire

The Israeli military’s announcement that it has killed the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar should be an opportunity to end the devastating war in Gaza that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian men, women and children. The death of the man who masterminded the 7 October massacres in southern Israel that killed more than 1,200 people would mark a key moment in the conflict. It could renew momentum for a ceasefire deal and hostage release – as families of those held have demanded. With the group’s two other key figures already dead, Benjamin Netanyahu could declare victory.

There is no sign that he is prepared to do so without intense and sustained pressure on him – the sort of pressure that the US has repeatedly been unwilling to exert. Mr Netanyahu knows that protracting conflict extends his political life. It seems more likely that he will vow that it’s time to finish the job. The Israeli prime minister said last month’s killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, had “settled the score”, and his approval ratings rose. Then Israel launched its ground offensive in Lebanon.

Yet as attention moved to the northern front, the conflict in Gaza intensified. The horror of seeing the teenager Shaban al-Dalou burned to death due to an Israeli strike on a hospital compound seized international attention. But many more face deaths no less cruel. The UN says that 345,000 people face “catastrophic” levels of hunger in the coming months, and almost all of the 2 million population face “acute food insecurity”, with barely any food entering in the last fortnight.

This looks like “the generals’ plan” – a blueprint for human rights violations drawn up by retired military figures. Mr Netanyahu said he was considering it, and both human rights groups and Israeli personnel say that they believe it is already under way. It calls for the besieging of northern Gaza; all civilians would be told to leave and the military would assume that those remaining were terrorists and cut off all supplies. In the longer term, ministers have already called for the Jewish settlement of Gaza.

You cannot evade the demands of international law to protect civilians by arbitrarily designating them as combatants. For a year, families have been forced from one place to another, only to find further danger. Mr Dalou’s family had been displaced at least five times before his death. “We’re stuck in a never-ending nightmare,” he wrote earlier this year.

The US has issued arguably its starkest warning yet to Israel, making clear that arms transfers could be withheld if it did not allow more aid into northern Gaza. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told the security council that a “quote-unquote ‘policy of starvation’ … would be horrific and unacceptable”. Yet every time the US lays down a marker, Israel ignores it – and the US continues to supply both arms and diplomatic cover. The deadline set by Washington expires after the US election. Perhaps as an outgoing president, Joe Biden might rethink his unabating support for Israel. But he has shown no signs of it so far – and the people of Gaza cannot wait.

The resumption and acceleration of aid flows are crucial but insufficient. People are not only hungry, malnourished and ailing but exhausted and traumatised. A ceasefire and hostage release deal is no less essential for its current unlikelihood. Pressure from European nations might encourage the US to do the right thing. They should include not only a halt to arms supplies but also the imposition of sanctions on Mr Netanyahu’s extremist coalition partners Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who said it might be “just and moral” to starve Palestinians in Gaza until hostages were released. This opportunity must not be ignored.

ONLINE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/17/the-guardian-view-on-yahya-sinwars-death-and-gazas-future-an-opportunity-that-must-not-be-ignored

___

Oct. 20

The Philadelphia Inquirer says Donald Trump is a threat to the rule of law

In 2017, Donald Trump placed his hand on the Bible and swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

But Trump repeatedly betrayed his oath of office.

Throughout his chaotic term as president, Trump abused his power and trampled the rule of law — all for personal gain and to punish perceived enemies. He sided with adversaries — namely Russia — instead of the United States. Worst of all, Trump’s dark arts weakened America.

While some of Trump’s most vocal critics question whether his behavior would qualify as treasonous, at the very least his indifference to the Constitution and unconditional support for Russia make his potential return to the White House — with broadened immunity powers — an even bigger threat to the country’s safety and stability.

A recent court filing by special counsel Jack Smith laid bare how Trump refused to defend the Constitution against a domestic enemy. After Trump stoked the violent mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, an aide told him Vice President Mike Pence’s life was in peril.

Trump replied, “So what?”

As MAGA supporters ransacked the building and hunted for his loyal lieutenant, Trump shrugged. Smith’s filing sharpened the evidence that Trump knew he lost the election, but still conspired with lawyers, aides, campaign operatives, and some rioters to overturn the will of voters.

That should disqualify Trump for a second term. Indeed, he remains under criminal indictment for his role in thwarting the peaceful transfer of power. But it gets worse, as new evidence points to Trump’s role as a modern Manchurian candidate.

During the pandemic, as Americans were dying and scrambling to get COVID-19 tests, Trump secretly sent test kits to Russian President Vladimir Putin, a forthcoming book by the iconic Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward detailed, and the Kremlin confirmed.

America first? More like Russia first.

Woodward’s reporting demonstrates that Trump remains steadfastly loyal to Putin. Why is a mystery, though Trump’s Russian ties run deep. After his real estate empire imploded in the 1990s, American banks stopped doing business with Trump. Russian investors bailed him out.

Russia also helped elect Trump in 2016, thanks to an influence campaign authorized by Putin. Trump claims Russia’s role was a hoax, but a Republican-controlled Senate panel issued a nearly 1,000-page report that detailed extensive election interference, including contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials.

Once in office, Trump went soft on Russia. He refused to condemn reports that Russia offered bounties for the killing of American troops. He pushed to admit Russia into the G-7, a move other world leaders rejected.

In 2018, he dismissed U.S. intelligence findings that Russia interfered with the election. In a humiliating display of weakness, Trump met with Putin in Helsinki and meekly swallowed his claim of not interfering with the election.

“President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be,” Trump said.

Former CIA Director John O. Brennan, who served six presidents, said Trump was in Putin’s “pocket” and called his performance in Helsinki “treasonous.”

Russia’s election-influencing efforts did not stop there. The Kremlin mounted similar schemes in the 2020 election, and more sophisticated efforts to sway the 2024 election in Trump’s favor.

Trump has repeatedly praised Putin, a former KGB spy who murdered critics, rigged elections, corruptly amassed enormous wealth, and is wanted for war crimes.

Trump called Putin “smart” and “tough.” He even said Putin outsmarted America. In August, he congratulated Putin on a deal that brought American hostages home.

Even after leaving the White House, Trump remained in contact with Putin. The two spoke as many as seven times, according to Woodward’s book.

The conversations occurred after Trump stole classified documents that included nuclear secrets and while he was pressuring Republican lawmakers to withhold funding to help Ukraine fend off the unprovoked attack by Russia.

It is unheard of to have a presidential candidate talking with a foreign leader, let alone an adversary. And it may be illegal since the Logan Act prohibits U.S. citizens from engaging in unauthorized diplomacy.

But the rule of law has never stopped Trump.

Trump accepted millions from foreign governments in an apparent violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. He was impeached in 2019 for a shakedown scheme that involved pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt on then-political rival, Joe Biden.

At the time, Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, said simply: “Donald Trump is a traitor.”

After leaving office, Trump was indicted for taking classified documents and showing them to others. He was convicted in May of paying off an adult film star to hide an alleged affair from the public that could have influenced the outcome of the 2016 election. He awaits sentencing.

If elected, Trump has already discussed plans to again betray his oath and abuse his power. With no evidence of wrongdoing, he wants to imprison perceived enemies and critics, including Biden, former Republican U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and others. He threatened to execute former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley after a magazine article detailed the general’s efforts to protect the U.S. from Trump.

Trump’s track record demonstrates these are not idle musings.

As president, Trump pressured the U.S. Justice Department to investigate former FBI Director James Comey and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, two longtime law enforcement officials.

Prosecutors investigated Comey but he was not charged. Trump also told his chief of staff he wanted to “get the IRS on” Comey. An IRS audit found Comey overpaid his taxes. But Comey still spent thousands of dollars in legal and accounting fees to defend himself.

Trump also sicced the FBI and IRS on McCabe. The IRS launched an invasive audit. After a separate two-year investigation, a grand jury rejected efforts to indict McCabe. The judge in McCabe’s case, a George W. Bush appointee, referred to Trump’s efforts as something out of a “banana republic.”

Trump’s vindictiveness did not stop there. He pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire McCabe days before his retirement in 2018, costing the 22-year law enforcement official his pension benefits. McCabe’s benefits were later reinstated as part of a legal settlement.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent misguided ruling granting presidents broad immunity would enable Trump to abuse his power with impunity.

Two years ago, he called for terminating the Constitution in order to overturn the 2020 election and reinstate him as president. If elected again, Trump said he would be a dictator on Day One.

Trump betrayed his oath of office in other ways. He belittled the military. He ordered administration officials to ignore subpoenas from Congress, a coequal branch of government under the Constitution. He shared highly classified information with Russia’s foreign minister.

There is a reason more than 100 Republican officials, including some who worked for Trump, have endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president.

Trump’s pledge of allegiance is to Trump.

ONLINE: https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/inq2/trump-threat-putin-manchurian-candidate-rule-law-20241020.html

News from © The Associated Press, 2024