Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
Sept. 4
The Washington Post says Trump’s inflation plan is to extort the Fed
President Donald Trump’s preferred monetary policy is simple. Is the economy sluggish? Cut interest rates. Is it heating up? Also cut interest rates. Now there’s a new addendum: If his handpicked Federal Reserve chair won’t play ball, hold the economy hostage.
At least, that’s what Trump threatened on Friday on Truth Social. He wrote that if the Fed doesn’t “get smart” and lower rates, he will halt trade entirely with any country that maintains a trade deficit with the United States. That would include China, Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, South Korea and dozens of others — in short, many of America’s top trade partners.
If Trump thinks elevated interest rates slow the economy, wait until he sees what cutting off trade would do.
Assuming Fed Chair Kevin Warsh is as much of an inflation hawk as he says he is, he’ll resist the pressure. The Fed has no good reason to cut rates right now. As Warsh himself warned last week, inflation remains stubbornly above the Fed’s 2 percent target. It’s nearly double, in fact, sitting at 3.7 percent, according to the Fed’s preferred metric. Even excluding food and energy prices, which are more affected by events such as the Iran conflict, prices are up 3.3 percent from a year ago.
Given Friday’s strong job numbers, Warsh leaving the door open for a rate hike is especially prudent. The U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in August across a variety of sectors, beating economists’ forecasts by nearly 100,000 jobs. Unemployment remained at 4.1 percent — lower than it was in any month between February 1970 and September 1999.
With the labor market on solid footing, goosing the economy before the midterms is a surefire way to make inflation worse. It’s telling that not all of the White House is fully on board with the pressure campaign against the Fed. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he thinks the argument for holding rates steady is “pretty strong.”
Hassett also clarified: “The Fed will do what it wants to do. We respect their independence.” It’s good that Hassett does, but it seems like “we” doesn’t include his boss.
___
Sept. 8
The Philadelphia Inquirer says that election deniers across the nation must be voted out
With Labor Day passed, the sprint is on to Election Day.
But unlike in prior years, when voters looked to candidates for answers on the economy, taxes, healthcare, and foreign policy, the biggest question is whether the United States will hold a free and fair election and certify the winners.
That’s because President Donald Trump is doing everything he can to cast doubt on the electoral outcome or possibly reject the results — if the Democrats win control of either or both chambers of Congress.
Of course, if the Republicans retain control of the House and Senate, well, then never mind. Under that scenario, the Trump-led effort to gerrymander congressional districts, seize ballots, suppress mail voting, curtail voter access through executive orders, gut election security agencies, send federal agents to the polls, and other efforts will have resulted in a “perfect” election.
But if the Republicans lose either the House or Senate, brace yourself for chaos.
This should not surprise anyone who endured Trump’s relentless efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Recall that he was criminally indicted for that ugly plot against the will of the people.
Hundreds of insurrectionists — inspired by Trump’s repeated election lies — were charged with or convicted of crimes related to that violent day that will forever be a stain on American history.
Trump freed them all on his first day back in office, including those who attacked police officers. He also pardoned several key election deniers who worked on his behalf, including disgraced former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, election dirty trickster Roger Stone, and many others.
Sadly, 2020 may just be a warm-up compared with 2026.
This time around, dozens of county officials in charge of elections in key states like Virginia, Ohio, and Nevada are election deniers.
Pennsylvania is home to more election deniers in office than any other state in the country, according to a recent report by the States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to free, fair, and secure elections.
The report found 86 election deniers in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, including nearly half of the state Senate and a third of the House. Many played a role in efforts to subvert the 2020 contest.
Voters have an opportunity to remove the election-denying tumor from the body politic on Nov. 3, when all the state House members and half the state Senate in Harrisburg are on the ballot.
The same goes for Congress. Several Pennsylvania representatives who are election deniers are also on the ballot, including Dan Meuser, Scott Perry, Lloyd Smucker, John Joyce, Guy Reschenthaler, Glenn “GT” Thompson, and Mike Kelly.
The entire Republican congressional delegation — including U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick — voted for the so-called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.
The SAVE Act is billed as an election integrity measure, but it is nothing more than an attempt to suppress votes, and would especially impact married women and Black and brown voters.
U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick (R., Pa.) has been one of the biggest champions of the legislation, along with Trump. Yet, despite Trump’s relentless pressure campaign, there was not enough support in the Republican-controlled Senate to pass it.
The measure is dead for now. But the best way to secure future elections is to vote out the election deniers.
Until then, the next few months before and after the election will be a major stress test for election integrity across the country.
With no real accountability for his past un-American actions, Trump is more emboldened to do whatever it takes to keep Republicans in control. (He has a strong partner in the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court that has actively dismantled voting rights and handed Trump broad immunity from his crimes.)
Trump is not acting out of allegiance to GOP members running for office. He cares only about retaining his own power. Like Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, Trump sticks his neck out for nobody — least of all his loyal MAGA voters.
The president fears that if Democrats take control of the House or Senate, there will be investigations into his rampant corruption, which includes self-dealing schemes that enabled him to make more than $2 billion during his first year back in office.
GOP lawmakers have also done little to nothing about affordability issues, the failed war in Iran, deportation abuses, and the U.S. Department of Justice’s upending of the rule of law.
For those fed up with the direction of the country under Trump, there is only one answer: Vote the bums out.
___
Sept. 6
The Wall Street Journal on the growing rift between Democrats and John Fetterman
The price of dissenting from orthodoxy in Washington these days is high—if you’re a Democrat. If you’re a Republican who supports higher taxes or Big Labor, you’re hailed as a free-thinker. But a Democrat who dissents on Israel becomes Public Enemy Number 2 after Donald Trump.
That’s the treatment now descending on Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, as former aides and fellow Democrats feed stories intended to drive him from the Senate. Sources who decline to be identified say he neglects semiofficial duties such as constituent meetings, committee hearings and public funerals, but that he appears on cable-news shows with regularity (including, mortal sin, Fox News). Readers can decide if these are serious offenses among the cast of dedicated saints known as the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Fetterman’s real offense is political. He’s a consistent progressive on taxes, healthcare, climate, guns, social issues and much else. But he vocally supports Israel in its war against Hamas and Hezbollah, backs President Trump’s war in Iran, and rejects such progressive-left follies as abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and defunding the police.
Such heterodoxy probably benefits Democrats by making their party seem less crazy. A lot of thanks he gets—his Democratic colleagues evidently want to ruin him.
Mr. Fetterman’s defections from the party line have been few by comparison with previous eras. But progressives thought Pennsylvania had elected a dependable left-winger in 2022 and haven’t overcome the shock that he has a mind of his own. Mr. Fetterman nearly died of a stroke days before his 2022 primary, and the close encounter with mortality altered his political outlook. He told the Journal in an interview last year that many Democrats “want more of the performative stuff, the yelling and the explosive things. But I’ve lost my taste for that.”
The sight of protesters denouncing Israel hours after the savage Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, also gave him a jolt. Mr. Fetterman’s emphatic support for the Jewish state has had the effect of highlighting Democratic leaders’ reluctance to speak unequivocally about the left’s flirtation with antisemitism. For that reason alone, they want him out of the way.
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee in Michigan’s Senate race and an anti-Israel obsessive, gave the game away when he named as a top priority once in office the defeat of Mr. Fetterman in a 2028 primary. “You put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message,” Mr. El-Sayed said with his usual charm.
The attack on Mr. Fetterman’s alleged laxity in carrying out his duties is intended to provide progressive Democrats the talking points they need to promote a primary challenge, assuming they can’t drive him to announce his retirement first. Expect more such accounts in the press, replete with quotes from unidentified party officials.
An anonymous group of former Fetterman staffers has started a social-media account promising to share their old boss’s supposed misdeeds. The tattlers say they’re “disgusted with what he’s become,” and they’re leaking private emails and text messages in a clear violation of their staff obligations.
They’ll feign indignation about poor office behavior, but what angers them is his occasional votes with Republicans, his refusal to indulge in hysteria about Mr. Trump and, especially, his unapologetic support for Israel. This is intolerable in today’s Democratic Party.
ONLINE: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/democrats-want-fetterman-on-a-pike-afbaea14?mod=editorials_article_pos8
___
Sept. 8
The Boston Globe says that the Meta settlement shortcomings should be supplemented by legislation
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, will change its platforms to better protect teenagers from addictive social media behavior, under a legal settlement the tech company reached with 47 states, including Massachusetts, as well as Washington, D.C., and several US territories on Aug. 26.
But those positive steps shouldn’t stop Massachusetts’ Legislature from passing its own bill to protect young people from harmful social media features. Both the House and Senate have passed bills to regulate social media for minors, and a conference committee of lawmakers is currently negotiating a final version.
As Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said at a press conference announcing the settlement, the protections established by the settlement are a “floor” but don’t prevent states from going further.
Ideally, Congress would regulate social media’s ability to target kids with addictive features, so tech companies aren’t faced with 50 sets of regulations in 50 states. The Meta settlement provides a template for legislation.
But if Congress doesn’t act, states shouldn’t use the settlement as a reason not to implement any additional protections that lawmakers feel are in the best interests of their young people.
Under the terms of the settlement, which was swiftly approved by a judge, Meta will pay the states approximately $12.7 billion over 10 years. If YouTube and TikTok, which are also facing litigation over allegedly harmful practices targeting youth, agree to join the settlement and impose similar restrictions on their platforms, rather than face the uncertainty of a trial, Meta will pay an additional $5.3 billion — reflecting the fact that Meta would be at a competitive disadvantage if the other platforms don’t join. Massachusetts expects to get $366 million, plus another $150 million if YouTube and TikTok settle.
Under the settlement, children under 13 will not be allowed to use Facebook or Instagram. Users ages 13 to 18 will only be allowed to use Meta apps for two hours a day, unless a parent removes that limit. Apps will be blocked between midnight and 6 a.m. and notifications will be muted during school hours, unless a parent removes those restrictions. Teenagers will be given an option to opt out of addictive features, including personalized algorithmic feeds and autoplay. Meta will block filters that mimic cosmetic surgery and disable, by default, options that count “likes” or otherwise quantify reactions to users’ posts. The settlement restricts adults who a teen has not connected with from contacting a minor or viewing a minor’s account.
The settlement is an important one, in no small part because it got Meta to agree to restrictions which, if they were imposed by law, Meta would probably challenge in court. For example, laws blocking specific filters or imposing time limits on usage could be challenged as limiting Meta’s free speech rights.
But the settlement also has its limits — and that’s where the Legislature should step in. The most glaring omission is it only applies to Meta and, potentially, YouTube and TikTok. Passing legislation with similar restrictions would ensure the same terms apply to all social media companies — those that exist today and any future platforms. Legislation would also make protections permanent, while the settlement imposes most terms for 10 years.
In addition, lawmakers may choose to impose additional restrictions. For example, the House and Senate bills would each prohibit social media platforms from providing addictive features — including autoplay, infinite scroll, and algorithm-driven feeds — to at least some teenagers (the age limits differ in each bill). The settlement will only give teens an option to opt out, and it doesn’t restrict infinite scroll. Lawmakers could also consider imposing stricter age or time limits — for example, the House bill would prohibit users under 14 rather than 13.
Another important question for Campbell and the Legislature will be how to best spend the money. The settlement contains a list of potential uses aimed at addressing the harms posed by social media, including expanding mental health crisis hotlines; funding after-school programs, summer programs, or outdoor activities; implementing phone-free school zones; teaching students about digital literacy; and training medical providers on media use and body image. Campbell said some money will also go to the state’s general fund.
If lawmakers ban in-school cellphone use, which this board supports, there will be a need for money to help schools implement these policies — for example, purchasing phone storage pouches. But lawmakers should also think more broadly about ideas like expanding training for mental health clinicians on social media addiction or implementing digital literacy curricula in schools.
Used correctly, social media can provide a valuable tool for young people to connect with friends, create community, and find support. But when misused, social media can hurt young people’s mental health. Restricting addictive features and imposing time limits are important steps toward limiting social media’s potential for harm.
___
Sept. 8
The Seattle Times says courts should resist Donald Trump’s attempt to disrupt voting by mail
President Donald Trump has been working day and night to make sure Americans can’t freely and fairly exercise their right to vote this fall, and he will continue to use any and all of the institutions he controls to make sure that happens. But he doesn’t control the people, at least not those in Washington state.
Over the past 30 days Trump has overtaxed federal courts and the United States Postal Service to make sure his scheme will work this November and beyond. And now, in an emergency request, the administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the Postal Service to determine who’s mail-in ballots are valid. Though by law elections are the state’s responsibility, Trump seems determined to give that charge to the postmaster general. Lawmakers, judges and voters should reject that notion and lock arms to guard the U.S. Constitution.
Trump issued an executive order this spring that would require states to give the federal government a list of registered voters who are eligible to vote by mail. The Department of Homeland Security would develop a list of citizens that would be used to prevent ballots from being sent to noncitizens. Under the order, even states’ ballot envelops would have to be approved by the postal service.
Washington’s voting system is among the most safe and secure in the nation. State Attorney General Nick Brown has twice sued the administration over the executive order; 23 other states joined the lawsuit.
After hearing the case, federal Judge Indira Talwani on Aug. 27 issued a temporary order barring the administration from using the system until Sept. 10. She extended the order late Friday indefinitely.
Beyond the obvious, there’s another reason for Washingtonians to be concerned. Washington’s Democratic U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell and Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said last week that about 20,000 primary ballots were not counted because they were postmarked too late. That’s an increase of the 32% over the comparable 2024 primary. They cited the postal services change to having ballot’s postmarked at a regional processing center instead of at local post offices as the reason, a blatant delay tactic. In some rural areas of the state, up to 5% of the ballots were postmarked late.
Trump’s request at this late hour would disenfranchise voters, including those in the military serving abroad.
North Carolina began mailing ballots to voters on Friday. At this late date, the Supreme Court should invoke the Purcell Principle and refuse to hear Trump’s request this close to the election.
But, if justices take up the request, they should make a ruling that follows the Constitution, not political preference. Responsibility for elections don’t belong to the president, the postal service or the Department of Homeland Security.
It belongs to the states.
