Nov 25, 2017 4 min read

Editorial voices from newspapers across the United States:

The Akron (Ohio)

Beacon Journal

Rex Tillerson has embarked on a “redesign” of the State Department. The secretary of state seeks efficiencies, a streamlined staff and, ideally, improved responsiveness. The effort has not been going well, as many news accounts indicate. Now members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, are raising concerns.

The American Foreign Service Association reported leading career officers have been leaving at alarming levels, 42 percent at the level below ambassadors. There’s been a dramatic drop in entry-level hires, those new foreign-service officers who start accumulating expertise and experience.

Meanwhile, nominations for undersecretaries and assistant secretaries have been slow to arrive, many positions still vacant.

The president declared about the role of the State Department, “I’m the only one that matters, because when it comes to it, that’s what the policy is going to be.”

What the president doesn’t seem to grasp is that the department is there to help in understanding and decision-making.

Unfortunately, the diplomatic ranks are depleted. Department morale is low. Much of the problem stems from the president. Yet Tillerson has contributed, his pursuit of a redesign diminishing the diplomatic corps, as his relationship with the president suffers.

The Hartford (Conn.) Courant

Parents of schoolchildren murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School are trying to persuade the Connecticut Supreme Court to let them sue the manufacturer of the military-style weapon used in the 2012 slaughter, as well as the gun distributor and the now-closed store where it was bought. We hope they prevail.

The courageous parents have one large obstacle to overcome: Gun makers have special immunity from civil lawsuits. It’s a shield that few, if any, other industries have, and it was granted by a cowardly Congress in the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The gun lobby said at the time that it needed protection from a slew of lawsuits because it didn’t have “deep pockets.” Congress, however, should be protecting Americans from the gun violence that infects the nation, not giving gun makers special protections.

The question that the Sandy Hook parents want a jury to look at is: What did the manufacturer do to mitigate the obvious risk of this weapon falling into the wrong hands? It’s a good question.

There have been at least 1,552 mass shootings nationwide since that terrible day in 2012, according to Vox. Meanwhile, Congress has rejected one gun safety measure after another.

Congress won’t stop the slaughter. It prefers shielding the gun industry from lawsuits. May the Sandy Hook parents succeed in puncturing that shield.

The Portland (Maine) Press Herald

If you’re completely confident that your money and personal information are safe in the hands of the financial services industry – and if you don’t have a credit card, a mortgage, a student loan or a bank account – there’s no need for concern about the resignation of the nation’s top consumer advocate.

The rest of us, on the other hand, should be very worried about the near-certainty that the next head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be someone bent on gutting it rather than ensuring that it’s better equipped to do its job.

Richard Cordray’s announcement Nov. 15 that he plans to step down by the end of the month follows a tumultuous first six years for the bureau, the only federal agency solely dedicated to protecting Americans from harmful banking and lending practices.

Banks, mortgage companies, credit card issuers and their Republican allies in Washington have long been critical of the bureau, but their efforts to weaken its oversight of unfair, illegal or predatory practices didn’t pay off until Donald Trump was in office.

The Trump administration’s approach to financial regulation can be summed up in three words: Foxes, meet henhouse.

All told, about 29 million Americans have gotten back nearly $12 billion as a result of the bureau’s efforts. If senators help put in place someone whose goal is to undo these safeguards, the people who stand to lose out – their constituents – should be prepared to hold them accountable.