“The last few years, the Republicans who run this Congress have insisted that we go right back to the policies that created this mess,” he said, speaking in Columbus, Ohio. “Now their agenda is on steroids.”
There was a tiny echo of 2008 at the conclusion of his remarks when he said he “still believes” the country is not as divided as its politics, that people were Americans before they were Democrats or Republicans. But as Mr. Obama has reason to know, the country is more divided than it was four years ago, the parties and their supporters more polarized, and he will have to be far more persuasive if he hopes to win and then to govern effectively.
The president riffled through his considerable accomplishments, and was withering in his assessment of Mitt Romney’s plans to let prosperity sprinkle slowly from the hands of the rich onto the heads of everyone else. It is vital for Mr. Obama to make this contrast, to remind voters how far backward Mr. Romney and his party would take the country.
And Mr. Obama’s general goals are the right ones: more college degrees, better teachers, growth in manufacturing, investments in clean energy and preservation of gains in health care and women’s rights. But it’s not enough to simply tick through dreams that will die in a divided Congress. The public has seen plenty of that. Mr. Obama needs to spend more time persuading dubious and disillusioned voters that he can achieve these goals.
It’s true that he has repeatedly been burned seeking elusive “grand bargains” with Republican leaders who proved unwilling or unable to compromise. But even Democrats say the president has been too aloof in his first term, not bothering to make his case in the Capitol, not interested in the L.B.J.-style flesh-pressing or arm-twisting that can rescue a law out of the mortuary of bills.
The president can let loose a great speech, but without follow-through Congress can be counted on to muck up the details, as he should have learned from the fight over the health care reform law of 2010. He never made the sale with the public on the law, and the two or three sentences he devoted to it in his speech were insufficient. If not struck down by the Supreme Court, the core of the law will be fully felt in his second term; rather than shy away, it is time to explain to the public in detail what that would mean and why it is important that he be there to fight for it.
Similarly, the speech lacked any detail of his plans to shore up Medicare while reducing its untenable cost growth. If he is going to counter the Republican plans to end Medicare’s guarantee to older Americans, he will have to do better than a quick promise to reduce wasteful spending.
Voters already know that Mr. Obama can lift their hopes with a powerful speech. This time around, they will be seeking far more than inspiration.
A Library for the Future
Published: May 8, 2012
For over a century, New York’s majestic central library on Fifth Avenue has drawn grateful scholars and dazzled tourists. Faced with financial uncertainties and a pressing need to modernize, the president of the New York Public Library system, Anthony Marx, has put forward a $300 million proposal to renovate the flagship building.
The plans, which are still evolving, sound both necessary and forward-thinking in this digital era. But the library’s overseers have to take care that they preserve the essence of this cultural landmark.
Mr. Marx and the city must make certain that the renovation provides the widest possible public access to the library’s collection. So far, the city has promised $150 million, and the library must come up with the balance. The plan calls for selling the Mid-Manhattan branch and the Science, Industry and Business Library and folding their collections into the central branch.
The central library will then become a circulating library as well as a research facility. Combining the three libraries will mean about twice as many people, or more than three million a year, will use the central branch. To accommodate more users, the architect Norman Foster is expected to design new public space in areas that are now closed.
The Rose Main Reading Room and other special collections will remain as they are. About two million volumes will be moved elsewhere, probably to a facility in New Jersey, though more than two million will remain in the building. Mr. Marx has said getting off-site books should take about a day.
Though some library lovers want nothing to change, this plan could revitalize the library and make it as much a resource for the public as it is a research haven for writers and scholars
.
Persuasive
Delaying Justice at Guantánamo
Published: May 8, 2012
Related in OpinionMilitary commission
hearings began last week against five men held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for conspiring in the 9/11 attacks. Other detainees, however, are held without charges and their legal right to challenge their detention remains blocked.
The majority, in a grossly unfair decision, said a government report leading to Mr. Latif’s detention must be assumed to be accurate under “a presumption of regularity,” unless there is “clear evidence to the contrary.”
The Supreme Court is
expected soon to consider a request to review the case. It should promptly reverse the appellate decision, which eviscerates the justices’ 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that allowed Guantánamo prisoners to challenge the legality of their detention in federal court through habeas corpus petitions.
Now a version of the
appeals court ruling with some previously redacted portions shows even more defects in Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s majority opinion. In addition to misstatements about rules of evidence, there is inexcusable disregard for critical facts.
Mr. Latif, who sustained head injuries in a 1994 car accident in Yemen, went to Pakistan for medical treatment in 2001, and then traveled to Kabul to find a Yemeni man who promised to help him. He was arrested near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and transferred to Guantánamo where he has been held without trial since 2002.
The government contends he fought with the Taliban after being recruited by Al Qaeda. Its evidence is an intelligence field report stating Mr. Latif said he had a hand, not a head, injury, according to the now unredacted portions. He said that was a translation error. In treating the report as reliable, Judge Brown gave the government an unfair and almost insurmountable advantage.
The trial court rightly
found the report unreliable and uncorroborated and found Mr. Latif’s story plausible and corroborated by medical records. Instead of accepting the trial court’s proper findings, the appeals court created a new, indefensible rule, essentially rejecting the Supreme Court’s Boumediene ruling.
The appeals court has decided 19 habeas petitions filed by detainees, and has never supported a grant of a habeas petition. In the Latif case and six other detainee cases now up for review, a major
question for the justices is whether they will go along with the appellate court’s refusal to allow Guantánamo detainees to prevail in habeas cases. Its own authority is on the line.
How Much for That Coffee?
Published: May 8, 2012
Imagine that you have exhausted your checking account at the mall when you swing by the coffee shop for some reviving caffeine. Would you prefer the bank to: a) decline the purchase on your debit card so that you can pay cash, or b) pay for that coffee and then slam you with a $35 overdraft penalty. We know what we would answer.
Until two years ago, the nation’s banks could automatically enroll customers in overdraft programs — the result was tens of billions of dollars in overdraft fees. The Federal Reserve finally stepped in, requiring banks to get the customer’s consent before enrolling them. But it should have done more: requiring reasonable, and proportional penalties; and pressing banks to develop ways of alerting debit card users before they overdraw.
Overdraft revenue, estimated to have been as high as $37 billion annually, has dropped by about 15 percent, according to one estimate. The banks are not giving up.
The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a vital role to play. It should require financial institutions to clearly explain their overdraft programs and include complete pricing information about different overdraft options. The bureau should also require fees to be reasonable and proportional to the amount of the overdraft, and the actual costs to the banks.
According to the Pew study, 75 percent of people who have been hit with overdraft fees say they would prefer the bank to decline transactions when their accounts are empty. If the banks are playing by the rules, all customers should know that the easiest way to avoid overdraft fees is not to opt into the program
.
