Saturday Commentary

The Washington Post's editorial board takes up the issue of congressional trips paid for by corporations or nonprofit organizations, following allegations of improper trip-taking by Tom DeLay and other House members. "What's clear," says the Post in "Rules for the Road", "is that it is once again time for lawmakers to take a serious look at the travel rules and to strengthen them significantly." Calling the cuts to Medicaide and other entitlement programs contained in Thursday's budget resolution "arbitrary," the Post reminds us that "The mere announcement of funding cuts does not amount to Medicaid 'reform'", and suggests that Congress should listen to the advisory panel that will be formed to study Medicaid reform "and propose solutions rather than plucking arbitrary budget numbers out of the sky." Finally, the Post calls Wednesday's rollback of partisan House ethics rules "a happy lesson," noting that even though this may be seen as a short-term victory for Democrats, Republicans should remember that "in the end, their party, the institution in which they serve and the people they represent will be better off for it." Exactly.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican Tim Talent join forces for an op/ed column in the Post to "applaud" a voluntary move by four major pharmacies to move drugs containing pseudoephedrine off the open shelves and behind pharmacy counters. Pseudoephedrine is used in the making of methamphetamines, and until recently, the senators write:

"Those seeking to make it have up to this point been free to purchase all the pseudoephedrine they need, easily and without scrutiny. One of our staff members recently went to a local grocery store to purchase a large quantity of cold medicine for use in a news conference. He bought 27 boxes of cold medicine, and no one batted an eye."

Feinstein and Talent are planning to introduce legislation that will force retailers to sell all drugs containing pseudoephedrine from pharmacies, and will "limit the amount one person can buy to 9 grams a month -- that's the equivalent of 300 30-milligram pills." The senators clearly mean well, and I agree with their intent. But personally I'd rather they continued to encourage voluntary compliance or left the matter up to the states rather than increased the federal government's role.

The New York Times editorial board echoes the RINO's thoughts on the Bush Administration's "energy plan." Speaking of a Bush speech to the Small Business Administration on Wednesday, the Times says, "as always, he completely ignored the surest way to reduce demand and thus oil dependency, which is to improve the fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks. Indeed, everything Mr. Bush said seemed designed to divert attention from this simple and technologically feasible idea, which nevertheless seems to terrify both him and the Congress." They challenge Sen. Pete Domenici, who will be largely responsible for drafting the Senate version of the energy bill, to "[have] the political courage to push for the stricter fuel economy standards that are essential to any serious effort to lower consumption." I couldn't agree more, and hope that Domenici and other Republicans will see the light on fuel efficiency before it's too late.

The Washington Times editorializes on Bush's Social Security proposal as outlined on Thursday: "Given Social Security's huge and ever-rising unfunded liabilities, the president has exerted solid leadership as the Senate Finance Committee begins writing reform legislation. Mr. Bush has offered a sensible proposal that addresses about 70 percent of the 75-year solvency problem, and he continues to invite Democrats to the table, where he welcomes discussion and negotiation of all options, except raising the payroll-tax rate. Solving nearly three-fourths of Social Security's long-term financing problems, while still allowing real initial benefit levels to continue to rise for the overwhelming majority of workers, represents a major, positive step forward." I'll agree that it's a step forward, but I'm not yet convinced that it's positive. But it's something to work from, and that's a start. John Tierney in the New York Times also writes approvingly of the Bush plan, sentiments which have drawn much fire from bloggers this morning. From the Boston Globe, caution on Bush's plan: "he did not discuss the hidden effect of his proposal: limiting the stake the middle class now holds in the system. Democrats should oppose any compromise based on the erosion of the key principle of social insurance."

In the New York Times, a word on this week's announcement of a wonderful find in Arkansas. And from the Boston Globe, a heartfelt welcome back to the Ivory-bill, with this: " Thank you, magnificent creature of the swamp. This time we'll be careful. Promise."