Writing in The New York Times,
James Mann believes the best of President Obama's presidency may be yet to come:
Amid broad dissatisfaction, many commentators have declared his administration a spent force. (“He seems to have taken something like an early retirement,” Ed Rogers wrote for The Washington Post, describing the “post-Obama presidency.”)
Most of these end-of-Obama sentiments are sincerely felt, and there are plenty of Obama-specific reasons for making these judgments.
Yet they all lack historical perspective. In fact, the notion that the Obama presidency is all but over has arrived right on schedule for any second-term president. By this stage of their presidencies, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, like Reagan before them, were all being written off as finished, not least of all by those who had been their strongest supporters.
On the topic of climate change,
Paul Diperna at The Los Angeles Times urges California to "make a climate deal":
It has been almost 25 years since the United States joined much of the world in Rio de Janeiro and tentatively agreed to do something to reduce the pollutants associated with global warming and other climate disruption. Since then, though, the U.S. has been a laggard in taking major action. Now, with a United Nations climate summit underway in New York and the next U.N. climate conference scheduled for December 2015, the U.S. can make up for lost time — with California's help.
All it would take is for the Golden State to allow voluntary opt-ins to its existing carbon cap-and-trade program, creating a de facto national system with the stroke of a pen.
With California's blessing, the U.S. could leapfrog its own inaction and find itself once again at the forefront in the race to address climate change. All without painful and costly political arguments. What we need is a successful, accessible, competitive way to regulate carbon emissions: California has built it, so why not let others come?
Much more on the day's top stories below the fold.
Eugene Robinson also takes a look at climate change in his latest column:
We are taking a huge gamble with the world’s future. Individual nations — and citizens — must choose to do the right thing to reduce carbon emissions and limit climate change, even if it means paying an economic cost. Counting on altruism is risky.
But it just might work.
More than 100 world leaders will assemble Tuesday at the United Nations to discuss what they are already doing, and further steps they might take, to address what majorities in many developed nations see as the gravest and most urgent problem facing the planet. No concrete action will be taken. President Obama will be there, but the leaders of the countries ranking first, third and fourth in emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide — China, India and Russia — say they have scheduling conflicts that make it impossible to attend. The calendar of actor Leonardo DiCaprio was free, however, and he will give one of the opening speeches.
The
editorial board at The New York Times, meanwhile, examines the administration's nuclear promises:
For much of the past six years, President Obama has talked about working toward a world without nuclear weapons. Yet his administration is now investing tens of billions of dollars in modernizing and rebuilding America’s nuclear arsenal and facilities, as The Times reported in detail on Monday. And after good progress in making nuclear bomb material more secure around the world, Mr. Obama has reduced his budget requests for that priority. This is a shortsighted and disappointing turn.
Turning to campaign finance reform,
Ben Cohen writes in favor of a constitutional amendment at US News:
While a Constitutional amendment may seem impossible, it’s not. We’ve done it 27 times before and we will do it again. So far, 16 states, more than 550 cities and towns and more than 150 members of Congress support an amendment. On Sept. 8, a number of national groups submitted more than 3 million petition signatures to the Senate in support of the amendment. On Sept. 11, 54 Senators voted in favor. That wasn’t the two-thirds needed to move the bill forward. But it is a significant step towards success. And this amendment campaign is just getting started.
The Boston Globe pens an interesting editorial on tipping housekeeping staff:
CLEANING A dozen or more hotel rooms each day is grueling work, especially amid what’s being called an “amenities arms race” within the hospitality industry. As customers sleep on super-plush mattresses weighing upwards of 100 pounds, the room attendants who make up those beds and perform other physically demanding tasks are often out of sight and out of mind. That’s why Marriott International, in partnership with the nonprofit A Woman’s Nation, says it is placing envelopes in their hotel rooms along with polite encouragements for guests to tip their housekeepers. The initiative, known as “The Envelope Please”, should be helpful in drawing needed public attention to underappreciated service workers — as long as Marriott’s emphasis on encouraging customers’ generosity doesn’t become a substitute for higher wages and greater opportunities for advancement.
And, on a final note, the always insightful
Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal Constitution takes apart Republican unemployment number spin:
Even the House Oversight Committee, chaired by the highly partisan Darrell Issa, was grudgingly forced to conclude after its own investigation that there was no evidence whatsoever that the national jobless rate had been manipulated prior to the election. The whole claim is a fantasy, but a fantasy that some continue to defend no matter what.