Change we can see

Miami Herald, Jan. 8: If President-elect Barack Obama wanted to send a message that change is coming to the Central Intelligence Agency, he could hardly have done better than to pick someone with Leon Panetta’s know-how and experience as the next director.

The surprise choice drew a cool response from some members of Obama’s own party because he has no background in espionage and intelligence, but Panetta’s sound judgment and views on policies are exactly what the CIA needs.

Panetta has minced no words in condemning the interrogation and detainee-treatment policies that the Bush administration has allowed the CIA to employ after 9/11.

The CIA claims it does not use torture, but that seems to be more semantics than substance. Panetta’s selection signals the end of that game.

Panetta enjoys a reputation as a superb manager and budget expert. Those skills don’t necessarily make him a good spymaster, but as a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, he is familiar with the vital role of the CIA in keeping the president informed of events around the world and able to anticipate developments before they burst into crises.

From flawed assessments about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal to the use of harsh interrogation methods, the CIA has been criticized by civil libertarians who believe it has violated the law and by hard-liners who believe it has become ineffective.

This has led to a demoralization of the agency that someone like Panetta can do much to improve by doing away with discredited policies and restoring the CIA’s tradition of providing impartial, nonpolitical analysis, regardless of what the president – or vice president – wants to hear.

“What Panetta lacks in direct intelligence experience, he more than makes up in sound judgment, broad governmental experience and savvy about how all the pieces fit together – perhaps the most important qualities for a CIA director,” said John McLaughlin, No. 2 in the CIA under a former director.

None of this means that the Senate should avoid close scrutiny of Panetta.

Obama has made a strong appointment, but Panetta must still prove himself at his confirmation hearings.

Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 2: As President-elect Barack Obama’s transition aides scramble to develop smart ways to spend as much as $850 billion over two years in an economic recovery plan, they should look at investing in the nation’s most treasured places: its national parks.

A watchdog group, the National Parks Conservation Association, is calling for just that. In a report issued recently, the group highlighted the staggering backlog of maintenance – totaling $8.5 billion – and yearly underfunding of the parks to the tune of $750 million.

For years, the conservation group has issued “top 10” lists of the most endangered national parks, with Valley Forge making all-too-frequent appearances. Now there’s a chance to redress those years of deferred maintenance on a scale not dreamed about in decades.

Upward of $2.5 billion over a two-year period would have a substantial impact, the parks group contends. That would cover more than $1 billion in projects that the National Park Service has ready to go in the next year.

Those projects alone would generate more than 57,000 new jobs, according to the report. And an earlier study estimated that every federal dollar invested in national park projects returns at least $4 in economic benefits.

There was a time when $2.5 billion seemed like a lot of money. So it should be the national parks’ good fortune that so much of their unmet needs could be covered by what amounts to a rounding error among multibillion-dollar bailouts.

Dallas Morning News, Jan. 2: One hopeful feature of the coming Barack Obama presidency is his apparent passion for moving the nation beyond its weary cultural debates over such issues as abortion and gay marriage.

Common ground, of course, doesn’t magically appear, as if found on a map. Obama must make hard decisions, including selecting the right legislation to support as his term begins.

Interestingly, a pro-life Democrat and a pro-choice Democrat offer a way forward. Reps. Tim Ryan of Ohio and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, after watching past abortion debates end fruitlessly, have a bill that those opposed to abortion rights and those in favor of them can support. It’s focused on reducing the number of abortions.

One part of this odd couple’s proposal would give women incentives to carry their fetuses to term. It would remove pregnancy from the list of pre-existing conditions insurers won’t cover, provide nursing visits to qualifying new mothers and expand the tax credit families can claim when adopting children.

The second emphasis is equally significant. It would try to curtail the number of unwanted pregnancies through grants to local agencies that successfully prevent teen pregnancies. It also would expand contraceptive education and allow Medicaid to finance more family-planning services.

What we like is that this bill should push both sides out of their comfort zones. Pro-choice advocates would end up championing bringing more children to term. Pro-life backers would support contraceptives and other ways to prevent pregnancies.

That’s breaking new ground for both.