Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
Sept. 14
The Washington Post on the effects of legalized gambling
The new National Football League season will see plenty of records set on the field — and it’s expected to hit new heights off the field, too: specifically, the American Gaming Association projects that legal wagers on games will reach $35 billion, a 30 percent increase over last season. Most of that betting will involve online betting apps. In part, the growth reflects the fact that three new states — Maine, North Carolina and Vermont — have legalized legal sports betting, raising the total to 38 states and the District. And partly the projected growth reflects new incentives sportsbooks are offering gamblers: in-app live-streaming of games, platform upgrades to allow faster in-play betting, digital wallets and the ability to make multiple bets simultaneously. X is awash with sites offering tips and techniques for increasing the odds.
Legal sports gambling — unleashed by a 2018 Supreme Court decision — brought a new revenue stream to state governments (albeit not as lucrative a stream as some hoped) and, no doubt, mitigated some problems associated with illegal gambling. And, in many cases, participants in legal betting have enjoyed doing so without major issues. Yet for many others, the explosion of legal betting has also brought a host of negative side effects, financial and psychological, as we’ve noted before. So far, though, concerns about those problems have been based to a large extent on anecdotal evidence, such as reports of increased calls to gambling addiction hotlines.
Now comes more systematic research to quantify these troubling impacts. Researchers from UCLA and the University of Southern California published a paper this summer in which they examined credit scores, credit card balances, loan delinquency rates and other detailed financial data for roughly 7 million Americans. Using this information, they were able to contrast the experience of individuals in various states before and after they adopted legal sports gambling.
The findings provide cause for concern: The average credit score in states that legalized sports betting decreased by 0.3 percent — and by one percent, three times the average, in states that allow online sports betting. These might seem like small shifts, but they represent averages for entire state populations. This implies that a relatively small group of intensive users — “problem gamblers” — are suffering major damage to their credit scores, dragging down the overall average. Financial institutions in those states responded to the reduced creditworthiness of their consumers by lowering available credit limits, they found. The results were larger for young men from lower-income counties in those states. Meanwhile, states that legalized sports betting saw significant increases in bankruptcy filing rates and debt collections. Debt consolidation loans went up 8 percent by dollar value, and auto loan delinquencies increased 9 percent.
“Together, these results indicate that the ease of access to sports gambling is harming consumer financial health by increasing their level of debt,” the study’s authors wrote. “While many states may have opted for legalization with the hope of increasing tax revenue, the negative effect we document can partially offset tax revenue benefits as more consumers’ financial health deteriorates.”
In short, legal sports gambling is creating a pathway to financial distress for vulnerable individuals. States that legalized sports betting were often instructed by their legislatures to set aside some funding from the tax receipts to deal with problem gambling and addiction. But reporting and research show a huge disparity between how much states tax the betting industry.
In many states, gambling treatment centers are woefully underfunded even as the betting industry brings in billions of dollars. Montana stands out as one state that provides no taxpayer money for gambling addiction. The Montana Council on Problem Gambling is funded through donations, including from the gambling industry.
The federal government imposes a separate 0.25 percent excise tax on sports wagers, the proceeds of which go to the general Treasury. There might be some benefit from proposed legislation to dedicate some of it to support state gambling treatment programs and research into problem gambling and its effects. But it’s an after-the-fact fix to gambling-related harms as opposed to what’s really needed: prevention. That, in turn, would require reforms such as mandatory checks on bettors’ financial wherewithal and (consistent with the First Amendment) regulations on near-ubiquitous advertising, like those adopted in peer nations.
Legal sports gamblers have had their fun for half a decade now — and some have paid a high price. Congress should draw on that experience, and the new data, to design guardrails.
___
Sept. 13
The Wall Street Journal on subprime student loan debt
It’s a dirty job, but someone has to tell you about the federal government’s budget tricks. The latest is exposed in a new Congressional Budget Office report that shows how the 2010 Democratic takeover of student debt has created a new and vast entitlement.
CBO examined a sample of federal student loans that entered repayment between July 2009 and June 2013 to measure the extent borrowers were making progress on repaying their debt before the three-and-a-half years of pandemic forbearance. Short conclusion: They weren’t.
During the first six years after borrowers were supposed to begin making payments, CBO estimates that loans were in repayment status for only 45% of the time—about 32 months. Borrowers weren’t making payments for most of that time because they were either in default, forbearance or deferment.
It gets worse. CBO says “borrowers made payments greater than $10 in only 38 percent of the months” in which a payment was due. That means that even most borrowers who were making payments were doing so inconsistently and often in token amounts.
One reason is that the Democrats’ 2010 income-based repayment plans capped payments at 10% of discretionary income—i.e., income exceeding 150% of the poverty line—and canceled debt after 10 to 20 years. As a result, many borrowers had negligible required payments. But then their loan balances ballooned as they accrued interest.
After six years in repayment, the typical borrower owed 8% more than his beginning balance. A quarter of borrowers owed 30% or more debt. More than 75% of those in income-driven repayment plans had rising balances. Borrowers in such plans made payments of more than $10 a month in only about a third of the months.
Democrats say the student debt “crisis” is caused by for-profit colleges. But CBO shows that many students at nonprofit and public colleges are failing to repay their loans. After six years, the typical borrower who attended a nonprofit or four-year public college had paid down only 1% or 2% of his starting balance.
Unlike private lenders, the government has no incentive to ensure borrowers are making payments. The political imperative is to conceal the taxpayer losses on student loans by reducing defaults while effectively turning the program into a new entitlement.
This is what President Biden’s SAVE debt-forgiveness plan does. It eliminates payments for millions of borrowers while reducing them for most others to negligible amounts. Uncle Sam simply waives away unpaid interest. Wouldn’t it be nice if your credit card company did the same?
This accounting trick prevents the government’s $1.6 trillion in student debt from ballooning as borrowers fail to pay down their loans. Mr. Biden’s SAVE plan is estimated to cost $475 billion over a decade, which is on top of hundreds of billions that were already set to be written off.
To sum up: Democrats conned taxpayers by claiming their student loan takeover would save the government money. Now they’re trying to obfuscate the cost of their entitlement by expanding it. And they wonder why Americans don’t trust government?
___
Sept. 12
The Guardian on Israel/Gaza and the mounting instability in the Middle East
It is approaching a year since the Hamas atrocities of 7 October, in which 1,200 people were killed, and the beginning of the Israeli retaliation. Health authorities in Hamas-controlled Gaza say that 41,118 people have now been killed, with 95,125 injured; a quarter of those are believed to have suffered life-changing injuries.
The pace of killing may have slowed, but the deaths and suffering are no less horrifying. On Wednesday, six UN aid workers were among at least 18 people killed by an Israeli strike on a school in Nuseirat, central Gaza, where displaced people were sheltering. The day before, at least 19 people were killed by an Israeli attack in a supposed “safe zone” in Khan Younis to which people had been urged to flee by the Israeli military. On both occasions, Israel claimed it was targeting Hamas command and control centres. The strikes came less than a fortnight after six Israeli hostages were found dead, reportedly shot in the head by their captors as Israeli forces approached.
A US-backed deal for a ceasefire and the release of hostages has been on the negotiating table since late May. But what was evident 11 months ago is still more obvious now: there is no exit in sight without a clear strategy, and with a prime minister prolonging the war from his own political considerations. This is the verdict on Benjamin Netanyahu not only from political opponents, but from his own citizens, the former head of their internal security service, and the president of their staunchest ally.
“What’s happening in Gaza is totally unacceptable,” the UN secretary general, António Guterres, wrote following the attack on the Unrwa school. “These dramatic violations of international humanitarian law need to stop now.” Not only is Mr Netanyahu failing to heed Mr Guterres’s words; he is ignoring him entirely. Mr Guterres told Reuters that the Israeli prime minister has not taken his calls since 7 October. Joe Biden may express his frustration, most recently calling the Israel Defense Force’s fatal shooting of the American-Turkish dual national Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi at a West Bank protest against settlements “totally unacceptable”, but does little more. He has yet to call for an independent inquiry into the killing.
Meanwhile the deaths in Gaza mount. Relief groups say that the flow of aid remains so wholly inadequate that 1 million people, around half the population, will not have adequate food this month – even as loaded trucks sit waiting at checkpoints. Traumatised survivors, many of them injured as well as bereaved, are struggling for basic supplies. With 90% of the strip now covered by evacuation directives, many have been displaced multiple times, and no longer have homes to which they could return.
If the war ended tomorrow, the death toll would continue to rise due to these grim conditions and the diseases they engender. But the end appears no closer. The domestic protests that followed the killing of the six hostages showed no sign of shifting Mr Netanyahu, and he is anticipating Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Kamala Harris has offered a more sympathetic tone than Mr Biden to Palestinians, but no new prescription to alleviate their suffering should she win in November. The inadequacy of current US policy is ever more evident as the situation in the West Bank deteriorates and fears grow that Israel and Hezbollah are drifting towards full-blown war. The nightmare goes on.
___
Sept. 16
The Boston Globe says Israel must investigate killing of pro-Palestinian activist
Aysenur Ezgi Eygi was 26 and a University of Washington graduate with a degree in psychology. A friend of hers told the Associated Press that Eygi “loved humanity, loved people, loved life so much that she just wanted to help as many as she could.” Eygi, who had American and Turkish citizenship, traveled to the West Bank with the pro-Palestinian activist group International Solidarity Movement. She was killed by Israeli soldiers while participating in a demonstration.
To be sure, Eygi knew she was heading into a dangerous, volatile situation with the potential for violence. But she was there as a nonviolent protester, and a well-trained military should be able to distinguish between threatening and nonthreatening conduct.
The US government should demand a full and transparent investigation by Israeli authorities into Eygi’s death. Her family and friends deserve to know: Did the soldier who killed her abide by the military’s rules of engagement or did they violate military policy? Did the military have appropriate policies in place to protect the right to peacefully protest while identifying those who pose a violent threat? Any soldier or officer who is found to have violated the Israel Defense Forces rules of engagement should be disciplined, and any military rules that were inadequate to protect nonviolent protesters should be changed.
The IDF released a statement following its initial inquiry into Eygi’s death, which found that “it is highly likely that she was hit indirectly and unintentionally by IDF fire which was not aimed at her, but aimed at the key instigator of the riot.” The military said the incident took place during “a violent riot in which dozens of Palestinian suspects burned tires and hurled rocks toward security forces.” These findings will be reviewed by the Military Advocate General’s Corps, an IDF legal unit similar to the US military’s JAG Corps.
That review should be a thorough one because reports have emerged that potentially contradict the IDF’s statement. The Washington Post reported, based on eyewitness interviews, videos, and photos provided by pro-Palestinian organizations, that the shooting occurred half an hour after the height of the confrontations — which included stone-throwing and burning tires — and about 20 minutes after protesters had moved down the road, 200 yards away from the soldiers. There did not appear to be much happening at the time the shots were fired, the Post reported. The Post said Eygi was standing near a 17-year-old Palestinian who was injured by shots, and it is unclear if he was the IDF’s target.
President Biden called the shooting “totally unacceptable,” while citing the IDF’s conclusions that it was a “tragic error resulting from an unnecessary escalation.” Biden said the United States has access to Israel’s preliminary investigation and expects continued access as the investigation unfolds. He called for “full accountability” and Israeli action to ensure incidents like this don’t happen again.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Israeli security forces “need to make some fundamental changes in the way that they operate in the West Bank, including changes to their rules of engagement.” The IDF has not commented publicly on its rules of engagement, including policies around the use of live fire.
Eygi was not the only American shot amid recent flare-ups of violence in the West Bank, which are occurring amid the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. A New Jersey man, Daniel Santiago, says he was shot in the leg by Israeli forces during a Palestinian demonstration in the West Bank. The IDF said he was shot accidentally when bullets were fired in the air to disperse the protest.
Demanding justice for Eygi is not about choosing sides in the current conflict. This board has called for accountability for the 2022 killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, an Al Jazeera journalist and US citizen who was killed — apparently unintentionally by the Israeli military — covering Israeli military action in the West Bank. This board has also called for justice for all the American citizens murdered by Hamas terrorists in Israel on and after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.
Demanding justice for Eygi is about fulfilling the promise that America will seek to protect its citizens overseas.
ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/16/opinion/aysenur-ezgi-eygi-shooting-investigation/
___
Sept. 17
The Philadelphia Inquirer says America's mental health treatment crisis demand action
The death earlier this summer of a mentally ill Scranton man who authorities said was killed by his roommate at Norristown State Hospital is yet another sad symptom of this nation’s woefully inadequate system to help people whose medical conditions have made them a danger to both themselves and others.
Jacob Gonzalez, 25, diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression, was killed the day before a scheduled July 15 court hearing to determine his competence to leave the state-run psychiatric hospital and stand trial for breaking into a doctor’s office in November to seek shelter from the cold.
Authorities said another patient, Kyle Samuels-Robey, went to nurses to ask for ice for a swollen hand and told them he had choked Gonzalez. Samuels-Robey, 34, of West Philadelphia, was also diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. He had been committed to mental institutions for more than a decade.
The most egregious aspect of the state hospital’s failure to ensure Gonzalez’s safety was its staff’s apparent disregard for rules requiring room checks every 15 minutes. Video surveillance showed no one checked on Gonzalez and Samuels-Robey between 8 and 9:15 p.m. Shortly before 9:30, Samuels-Robey made his confession to nurses.
This was not the first time Norristown State Hospital has been in trouble.
The 144-year-old mental institution was cited in 2018 for having beds, doorknobs, and shower grab bars that inmates might use to take their own lives. Two years ago, its employees accused the hospital of abusing patients and encouraging their violent outbursts.
That type of patient neglect and mistreatment sparked the national movement more than 50 years ago to deinstitutionalize mental health patients. As a result, the more than a half-million patients in mental hospitals in 1955 were reduced to less than 60,000 by 1998. By 2020, however, that number had risen to 125,000 patients, and thousands more need institutional help.
Based on wait lists and other demographics, researchers say 60 psychiatric beds per 100,000 persons are optimal, and 30 beds should be the minimum. But America falls woefully short of either goal, with only 18 beds per 100,000, including beds in general hospitals. Pennsylvania has 29 beds per 100,000, and New Jersey has 22.
Hospital emergency rooms with too few psychiatric beds are routinely overwhelmed by people experiencing a mental crisis. Too often those patients are “treated and streeted” prematurely, which may lead to violent behavior aimed at others or themselves after their discharge, including suicide.
In fact, the Treatment Advocacy Center points out that a person with a severe mental illness is more likely to be a victim of violence than a perpetrator. While they admit the statistic is hard to calculate with precision, experts estimate that up to 56% of people with severe mental illness have experienced violent victimization within the last year, including theft, emotional abuse, sexual assault, and homicide.
Many of these victims were part of what experts 20 years ago called a “new generation of severely mentally ill persons” who instead of being committed to institutions were too often left on the street. Today, there’s nothing new about people who are mentally ill being homeless. Both their plight and the inexcusable murder of a patient in a Pennsylvania psychiatric hospital suggest America’s mental health system needs better attention.
“(W)e know today that the community is not necessarily the most benign treatment site for all mentally ill people at all times and that access to hospital care for those who need it, for as long as they need it, is absolutely essential to the success of deinstitutionalization.” That spot-on assessment — made 20 years ago by psychiatrists Leona L. Bacharach and H. Richard Lamb — remains an unheeded call for action.
Several fronts must be addressed to produce a more effective mental health system.
Institutions cannot be allowed to operate under the same inadequate standards that led to their mass closure decades ago. More institutional settings are needed for people on waiting lists who too often end up homeless or in jail. Better programs must be developed, and housing provided for people who, with the right intervention, can avoid commitment.
The nation’s mental health system seems to only get attention after a mass shooting. Gun rights proponents, in particular, are quick to blame the perpetrator’s mental state rather than the easy availability of a rapid-firing weapon as the problem. Even so, their lip service never leads to measures that dramatically improve the likelihood of a mentally unstable person getting help before a mass murder occurs.
In the long course of the current presidential election, little is being said about America being on track for its fifth year in a row with more than 600 mass shootings in which four or more people were killed. Many of those crimes were likely carried out by someone who never got the mental health assistance they needed.
It’s time to stop talking about a more effective mental health system. Let’s create it.