Editorial Roundup: United States

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

Feb. 22

The Washington Post on how many people died believing vaccine disinformation:

'œFreaking miracle.'ť That's how health journalist Helen Branswell recently described the vaccines that have saved millions of lives in the coronavirus pandemic. The vaccines, offered to the U.S. population, have proved to be 90 percent effective against infection. Ready within a year of the outbreak, they have proved to be safe. And they are widely available and free. There is no parallel in modern times.

Yet, some people chose to believe otherwise. In a just-published nationwide survey of 18,782 people across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the Covid States Project asked about four vaccine misinformation claims, asking respondents whether they were 'œtrue'ť or 'œfalse'ť or if a respondent was 'œnot sure.'ť Five percent said they thought that vaccines contained microchips; 7 percent said vaccines used aborted fetal cells; 8 percent said the vaccines could alter human DNA; and 10 percent were concerned that vaccines could cause infertility. Forty-six percent were uncertain about the veracity of at least one of the four false statements.

The survey shows how misinformation about vaccines continues to erode confidence in them. What kind of message is sent when Fox News host Tucker Carlson compares coronavirus vaccine mandates to medical experiments conducted by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, as he did Jan. 21? Or Mr. Carlson's many previous broadcasts raising questions in a haphazard way and relying on dubious sources? The new survey found that people who believe vaccine misinformation, or express uncertainty about it, tend to register higher degrees of trust in Fox News than those who reject the false vaccine claims. It also identified other groups of people who are more inclined to believe the misinformation. Young parents stood out as vulnerable to false claims.

Misinformation about vaccines has a direct correlation with whether people get immunized. The survey showed that among those who did not believe any of the false statements, 80 percent said they were already vaccinated. In the group that thought multiple false statements were true, 60 percent were hesitant to get the shot.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1 in 5 eligible Americans have yet to get their first vaccine dose. Millions of people remain unvaccinated. They were 14 times more likely than the vaccinated to die of covid, as of December, the latest month for which data is available. How many of the 551,168 covid deaths in the United States since Jan. 1, 2021, could have been averted with vaccines? Too many.

No more powerful case can be made than the voices of those who hesitated to get vaccinated and then faced the awful consequences. Consider the agonizing story of Chris Crouch and his wife, Diana, related in The Post by reporter Ariana Eunjung Cha. They were adamant they did not need to get vaccinated. When Diana was 18 weeks pregnant, she tested positive for the coronavirus and, ultimately, had to fight for her life and that of her baby.

In the era of a 'œfreaking miracle,'ť that is a fight no one should have to suffer through.

___

Feb. 18

The New York Times thinks members of Congress should never trade stocks:

Americans are in a sour mood with their elected officials. Blame the pandemic or inflation or Trumpism or stress or structural problems like inequality, but people do not feel that the system, much less its leaders, are working for them. The nation is experiencing a crisis of confidence that is eating away at its strength and unity.

Addressing this problem calls for long-term vision and commitment - things politicians aren't always known for. But a straightforward idea gaining traction on Capitol Hill could reassure a frustrated and exhausted public that lawmakers at least recognize this trust deficit: a ban on stock trading by members of Congress and their spouses.

This idea got a fresh jolt in the early days of the pandemic after some lawmakers faced awkward questions about whether they used nonpublic information to make lucrative stock trades just as the severity of the threat posed by the coronavirus was becoming clear.

A report in December by Insider was more definitive. It revealed that in 2020 and 2021, dozens of lawmakers failed to abide by rules requiring them to promptly disclose stock trades above a certain threshold. The investigation also found that Congress does a poor job of enforcing accountability and transparency measures.

In response to the uproar, there has been a push by both parties, in both houses of Congress, to establish stronger guardrails on congressional stock ownership. Multiple lawmakers have introduced bills pushing variations of a ban on trading individual stocks, some tougher and more expansive than others. The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, reportedly told donors in January that if, as expected, Republicans win back the House in the midterm elections this fall, they would work to pass legislation that would limit lawmakers' ability to trade stocks.

In a high-stakes election year, with lawmakers eager to show voters that they feel their rage, now is the moment to drive home this popular, common-sense reform. Americans have lost faith in Congress. Restoring trust in this institution requires concrete, bipartisan change.

It has been a decade since Congress last made a significant effort at policing itself in this area. The Stock Act of 2012, among other measures, made it illegal for lawmakers to trade based on access to nonpublic information. The reforms were well intentioned but inadequate. In practice, there are too many legal shades of gray. A clearer, brighter line needs to be drawn.

For all of the Democratic Party's talk about restoring public faith in government, its leaders in the House have been, until recently, resistant to talk of a trading ban for members. 'œWe are a free-market economy,'ť Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in December. 'œThey should be able to participate in that.'ť

The majority leader, Steny Hoyer, has been similarly weak, suggesting that a ban is unnecessary. While Mr. Hoyer owns no stock, he has said that 'œmembers ought not to be in a different situation that they would otherwise be if they weren't members of Congress.'ť

This rationale does not pass the sniff test. Members of Congress have access to a steady stream of information that regular Americans do not. They already exist in a different, more privileged situation.

The common argument that a trading ban would pose a hardship for lawmakers is no more compelling. Most of the proposals under consideration do not call for members of Congress to sell all their stock holdings. They would merely prohibit lawmakers from trading stocks in individual companies. Assets could still be held in vehicles such as index funds or blind trusts.

It also bears noting that only a sliver of American families, about 15 percent, directly hold stock in individual companies, as opposed to indirectly through mutual funds and the like. A stock trading ban would put lawmakers more in sync with the 85 percent of Americans who own no individual stock, rather than align their interests with the 15 percent who do.

A ban on congressional trading enjoys a bipartisan appeal that is rare in this polarized age. A January poll found that 63 percent of American voters are at least somewhat in favor of such a move - with strong backing among Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.

With the support for reform growing, Ms. Pelosi adjusted course this month, saying she was open to a ban and announcing that the House Administration Committee would look into the situation. The committee chairwoman, Zoe Lofgren of California, has said her team is analyzing the existing bills and would put together a broad-based consensus proposal.

The speaker's public shift was vital to keeping the push alive, but there is a difference between grudging acceptance and vigorous support. Proponents of reform need to keep the pressure on to ensure that this effort does not get slow-walked or bogged down in the devilish details. Ms. Pelosi, for instance, insisted that reform legislation should apply not only to Congress but also to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. 'œIt has to be governmentwide,'ť she asserted.

The judicial branch certainly could use some ethical shoring up. An investigation last year by The Wall Street Journal found that from 2010 to 2018, 131 federal judges 'œunlawfully ruled in cases involving companies in which they or their families held shares.'ť People involved in close to 800 lawsuits have since been notified that their cases are eligible to be reopened because of these conflicts.

There are proposals floating around that would address all three branches. Two Democrats, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Representative Katie Porter of California, recently reintroduced a bill that would tighten reporting requirements across the board, as well as bar trading of individual stocks by members of Congress, the president and vice president, Supreme Court justices and top officials with the Federal Reserve - which suffered its own trading scandals last year.

But trying to extend a governmentwide ban, while worthy on the merits, would introduce needless and potentially counterproductive complexity right now. There are, most specifically, concerns that an attempt by Congress to impose its will on the judiciary would set off a debilitating debate over the separation of powers. 'œThat is literally a different conversation and one that is so hard to wrap your arms around that you've tanked the movement,'ť as Representative Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Democrat who co-wrote one of the leading reform bills, lamented to The Times.

Lawmakers' top priority - arguably, their first duty - should be to clean up their own branch of government. They are, as elected officials, directly accountable to their voters, and many of the people to whom they owe their jobs and salaries have grave doubts about their ethical guidelines and rules of fair play.

In a series of recent Times Opinion focus groups, voters across the political spectrum described their frustrations and even anger at the political class and the system, seeing elected officials in both parties as acting in self-interest without rules or consequences. 'œThey all just go to their barbecues and cocktail parties and laugh,'ť said one independent voter. 'œThey just want the power. They couldn't care less about us.'ť Some Democratic voters expressed interest in term limits, curbs on lobbyist influence on lawmakers and new rules on money in politics.

The push for a trading ban is about more than imposing rules to keep lawmakers on the straight and narrow. It is about changing the widespread perception of public service as a playground for corruption and self-dealing. It is about restoring Americans' faith in their government. For Congress, there may be no worthier cause.

ONLINE: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/18/opinion/congress-stock-trading-ban.html

___

Feb. 18

The Wall Street Journal says the Biden, FERC are empowering Putin:

We live in strange and contradictory times. President Biden is trying mightily to deter a Russian invasion in Ukraine at the same time his regulators are working to give Vladimir Putin more leverage over global energy supplies. Obsessive climate politics gets more self-destructive by the week.

In an act of bizarre timing, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday revised its policy for approving natural gas pipelines and export terminals. FERC by law must vouch that projects are in the public interest and won't have a significant environmental impact. But now the agency plans to include greenhouse gas emissions in this analysis. The vote was 3-2, with two Republican commissioners dissenting.

Here's the kicker: The pipeline analysis may include emissions from upstream production and downstream consumption even though there's no reliable way to measure either one. You can bet that regulators beholden to climate activists will assert that every new pipeline will massively increase emissions even though more pipelines are needed to transport natural gas to back up unreliable renewables, especially as nuclear and coal plants shut down. It won't matter if the piped gas is replacing dirtier coal or helping to keep the lights on.

Climate activists are disappointed because FERC says it doesn't plan to consider the downstream emissions of LNG facilities, which is the Energy Department's purview. But FERC also knows U.S. LNG exports will have no impact on downstream emissions. If the U.S. exports less LNG, Europe and Asia will simply buy more gas from Russia or Qatar.

LNG export facilities depend on pipelines to supply them with gas. By blocking pipelines, FERC will effectively block more LNG export projects. The U.S. has seven LNG export terminals and will become the world's largest exporter this year with the completion of a new facility. Yet many LNG projects are stalled because of pipeline constraints.

The Marcellus and Utica shale deposits in Appalachia contain enormous amounts of natural gas that could be exported to Europe. But almost all approved and proposed LNG export terminals are located on the Gulf Coast because Democratic states and greens have blocked pipelines in the Northeast. Without pipelines, U.S. gas is stuck in the ground.

Mr. Biden's decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline destroyed thousands of jobs and damaged Canada-U.S. relations. But oil from Alberta and North Dakota's Bakken shale can still be transported by rail, truck and existing north-south pipelines whose flows have been reversed.

Pipeline constraints are suppressing production and prices in Appalachia in particular. Prices for Appalachian gas are some 15% lower than on the Gulf Coast. At the same time, spot prices for LNG shipments to Europe this winter were about 10 times more than what gas in the U.S was fetching. LNG is an enormous economic opportunity that FERC is throwing away.

This is probably why Sen. Joe Manchin came out so strongly against FERC on Thursday. 'œToday's reckless decision by FERC'S Democratic Commissioners puts the security of our nation at risk,'ť the West Virginia Democrat said. 'œThe Commission went too far by prioritizing a political agenda over their main mission - ensuring our nation's energy reliability and security.'ť

'œThe only thing they accomplished today was constructing additional road blocks that further delay building out the energy infrastructure our country desperately needs. Energy independence is our greatest geopolitical and economic tool and we cannot lose sight of that as instability rises around the globe.'ť

He's right on every point. FERC is diminishing U.S. geopolitical leverage against a revanchist Russia, which supplies about 40% of European gas imports. Russia is rapidly building pipelines and LNG export terminals to make Asia as dependent on its gas as Europe is so it can extort U.S. allies. Moscow is already using gas exports to pressure Japan not to join Western sanctions if it invades Ukraine.

Rest assured, Mr. Putin's apparatchiks won't be analyzing gas-project emissions. The climate obsessions of the left have already raised energy costs for hundreds of millions of Americans and are making the electric grid less reliable. Now they are actively aiding and abetting a dictator who may launch the biggest war in Europe since World War II.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm ought to be screaming at FERC to cease its political war on U.S. gas. But they are either MIA or believe that harming U.S. security to indulge climate virtue-signaling is good policy. FERC may nominally be an independent agency, but its new pipeline obstruction is following Mr. Biden's executive orders. The buck stops with him.

ONLINE: https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-regulators-empower-putin-ferc-natural-gas-joe-manchin-11645217981

___

Feb. 23

China Daily says that U.S. inflation spillover must be controlled:

It is often said that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold. That saying tends to refer to other countries following its lead, but when it comes to changes in the United States' monetary policy one can understand it in a different sense, since the spillover effects can significantly affect the economic well-being of other countries, especially the emerging economies, by disrupting their stock markets, asset valuations and capital flows.

With the US Federal Reserve suggesting recently that it will hike interest rates 'œmore aggressively'ť - possibly up to five times this year - to ease the country's skyrocketing inflation, there have been growing concerns that its policy shift will have major impacts on the financial stability of many developing countries, and thus further slow their pace of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

To address such worries, finance leaders from the G20 have called for realizing a 'œwell-calibrated, well-planned, well-communicated'ť normalization in monetary policy to minimize the impacts of the Fed's raising of interest rates. The consensus was reached last week during the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Yet great difficulties lie ahead as the finance ministers seek to accomplish their policy targets, given the vulnerable financial situation the world now finds itself in. To help prop up the ailing US economy during the pandemic, the Fed has resorted to printing trillions of dollars and injecting them into the banking system, which has driven up US national debt to its record high of more than $30 trillion. The amount of money created from 'œthin air'ť has reached such an unprecedented scale that by December 2021, 80 percent of all US dollars in existence were printed in the last 22 months, according to news reports.

Whether the US' 'œfinancial fantasy'ť can be sustained remains a question for economists to answer. But the surge in money supply, given the world's dollar dependence, has already led to rising food and energy prices globally, which has made the lives of poor people even harder. Now, with increasing US interest rates in sight, the developing countries, especially those with weak economic fundamentals, face the risks of much higher debt burdens and capital outflows which, if not addressed properly, could lead to financial crises.

This makes it all the more urgent and necessary for countries to strengthen cooperation in coordinating their macro policies so as to propel common development. The developed countries represented by the G7, together with the EU, still enjoy a dominant position in the global financial system. So it is imperative that they act responsibly to minimize the negative spillover effects from their monetary policies on the developing world.

ONLINE: https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202202/23/WS62161dcba310cdd39bc887e6.html