Editorials
Tuesday, November 11, 1997ONE of the silliest statements made in recent years here was the charge that Bank of Hawaii boss Larry Johnson committed bribery by stating that the bank would contribute to the campaign funds of candidates who support the recommendations of the Economic Revitalization Task Force. Johnson was merely stating the obvious: Political contributions are made with the intent of furthering the goals of the donor. Backing candidates
in agreement isn’t briberyPeople don't give -- shouldn't give -- to the campaigns of candidates with whom they disagree. Unfortunately, that happens a lot. When they do, it's mostly to protect themselves against retaliation by candidates they think will win. That's cynical, but justified by the need for self-preservation.
It's far healthier to make contributions on the basis of issues, which is what Johnson is doing. Of course, if he had announced that the bank would support the campaigns of opponents of the task force's recommendations, he would have been showered with compliments by the people who are trying to smear him.
Bob Watada, executive director of the Campaign Spending Commission, who should know what he's talking about, said he sees no violations of the law in Johnson's pledge. "It's all legal as long as all contributions to all candidates are reported," Watada said. "You make contributions to candidates who will do things for you. That's how the system works." Exactly.
The task force's recommendations were a good-faith effort to confront Hawaii's economic problems. Although reasonable people can disagree about the proposals, it is unfair and irresponsible to mischaracterize Johnson's attempt to encourage candidates to support those recommendations.
WITH the U.S. economy booming and the nation more dependent on foreign trade than ever before, labor union leaders and their sympathizers in Congress insist on keeping their heads in the sand. Their opposition to granting President Clinton "fast track" authority to negotiate trade agreements without fear of congressional amendment is folly. Clinton was forced to withdraw the fast-track trade bill from the House to avoid defeat. 'Fast track' fight
Under the Constitution the Senate must ratify treaties, which gives Congress an opportunity to reject a trade agreement. But it must vote up or down, yes or no. What the opponents of fast-track want is the authority to amend a treaty the president has already negotiated. This would force him to go back to the other governments involved and try to get them to accept changes, which might well be impossible.
The real intent of this movement, which is led by House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri, does not appear to be to gain the power to amend treaties, but to nibble them to death by attaching unacceptable conditions. This is a movement misguidedly aimed at protecting American jobs, failing to recognize that far more jobs can be created through liberalized trade than can be saved through protectionism. It's Ross Perot and his "giant sucking sound" all over again.
This is the lesson of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has resulted in increased U.S. exports to both Canada and Mexico. The president now seeks renewed "fast track" authority in order to extend the reach of NAFTA to Chile and ultimately to other Latin American and Caribbean countries.
Fast-track's opponents also refuse to recognize that the way to improve working conditions in poor countries is not to attempt to impose unrealistic standards but to open markets for their products, which will give people employment opportunities. That would enable them to buy more goods -- perhaps from the U.S.
Latin America is the fastest growing market for U.S. exports, doubling from $54 billion in 1990 to $109 billion in 1996, with Mexico accounting for $56 billion. But while Congress dithers, competitors in the European Union are busy expanding exports to Latin America. This is not the way to do business.
OUTRAGED by the desecration of Punchbowl and other Oahu cemeteries last April, Hawaii's Rep. Neil Abercrombie co-sponsored a bill stiffening penalties for such acts. The measure was approved in conference on Saturday; President Clinton was expected to sign it into law today, appropriately on Veterans Day. Veterans Day
Originally the bill proposed making theft or vandalism in a veterans cemetery a separate offense with a maximum sentence of 15 years for theft and 10 years for vandalism, plus a $1,000 fine for each. The final version was amended to direct the Federal Sentencing Commission to give extra sentencing guideline points for such offenses in a veterans cemetery. Destruction of federal property in excess of $100 is already punishable by maximum sentences of 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Police have had no results thus far in their efforts to find the perpetrators of the vandalism at seven cemeteries here. Community groups have offered as much as $35,000 for information leading to a conviction, but the trail has grown cold.
The effort to strengthen the law against vandalizing cemeteries is particularly appreciated on Veterans Day. So is the campaign to restore the Waikiki Natatorium, a memorial to Hawaii's World War I dead that has been shamefully allowed to fall into disrepair. Opponents must not be allowed to succeed in their attempts to block the restoration.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
