Editorial: The Denver Post on Arizona's proposed immigration law:

The Denver Post on Arizona's proposed immigration law:

The U.S. Supreme Court's review of Arizona's controversial immigration law will, we hope, provide clarity to states lining up to enact get-tough policies designed to chase illegal residents over the state line.

The legality of Arizona's law is a more complex question than it might seem at first blush, but we hope the court sees the matter for what it is — an encroachment on the federal government's mandate to set immigration policy.

The core issue centers on just how far states can go on immigration enforcement issues.

The U.S. Constitution authorized the federal government to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ... throughout the United States."

Subsequent federal immigration laws acknowledge a role for state officers, but it is explicitly one of cooperation with the U.S. attorney general.

It certainly doesn't authorize creation of a broad body of state law that is at odds with the federal mission.

From a practical standpoint, if all 50 states were to layer separate immigration laws on top of the federal government's policy, the nation would have nothing short of a mess. ...

What the nation's approach to illegal immigration shouldn't involve is a patchwork of state laws that would obstruct the federal government's responsibility to set — and enforce — immigration laws.

Chicago Sun-Times on driver cell phone use:

Cell phone conversations and driving just don't mix.

And it does not matter whether you are talking on a hand-held cell phone or keeping both hands on the wheel and talking on a hand-free phone.

Either way, the experts say, you are almost sure to suffer "inattention blindness" and quadruple your chances of getting into an accident.

That's the strong science behind a recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board, which we support, that all states enact a complete ban on the use of cell phones by motorists. ...

Far less appreciated is the danger of driving while talking on a hand-free device, such as a wireless headset. But, in fact, numerous studies have shown the danger is every bit as great as when talking on a hand-held phone. All cell phone conversations significantly reduce our awareness while driving, unlike a conversation with somebody sitting right there in the passenger seat.

In fact, that other person in the car, if an adult, actually acts as a helpful second driver, pointing out lights, pedestrians and signs, and naturally pausing in the conversation when the driving gets tight. ...

But driver distraction, topped by cell phone use, is now listed by the National Safety Council as one of the three leading causes of fatal car crashes, along with speeding and drinking. Auto crashes, in turn, are the leading cause of accidental death in the United States, with 32,708 last year.

Nine states have banned the use of hand-held phones while driving, and two countries — Germany and Portugal — have completely banned the use of cell phones while driving.

They're ahead of the curve...

The Buffalo (N.Y.) News on U.S. troops leaving Iraq:

After almost nine years, the war in Iraq is officially over, at least for American troops. For Iraqis, the departure of our military is both welcome and nerve-racking. The country has been freed from the brutality of Saddam Hussein, but its security infrastructure remains weak and its nascent democracy is susceptible to control by the anti-American theocracy in Iran.

Still, it was time to leave. The only point in staying would be if this nation were prepared for an indefinite stay in a country whose government wanted us to go. Even the Bush administration wasn't prepared for that. It was President George W. Bush who agreed to 2011 as the year for troops to come home.

It's not a perfect departure, given the uncertainties Iraq faces. In the end, this was a war that didn't need to be fought. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, in whose shadow the invasion took place. Despite the belief of the Bush administration and much of Congress, there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Yet we undertook an optional war at an eventual cost of 4,487 American lives, 32,226 Americans wounded in action and more than 1 trillion American dollars.

And that says nothing of the loss of Iraqi lives and treasure or the cost of lengthening the necessary war in Afghanistan. That unwise loss of focus allowed the Taliban to regroup and for Osama bin Laden to remain healthy years longer than he should have. ...

The outcome of the Iraq war may not become clear for years or even decades. But here's what is indisputable. The war is over and American troops are on their way home, where they belong.

Welcome back.The Seattle Times on food aid to North Korea:

The death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il speeds up the choreography of despotic succession as the youngest son of the "Dear Leader" is installed to run the family business.

Kim Jong Un is hustling to secure his position of power. Reports suggest he was already shuffling the upper ranks of the military with younger officers, who now owe their allegiance to him.

The concern is the transition of power to an unknown twenty-something will inspire irrational acts by the North Korean military, so the new leader appears tough.

Two North Korean attacks in fall 2010 — the sinking of a South Korean naval ship and the shelling of an island — have been seen as an early introduction of Kim Jong Un by his ailing father, according to University of Washington Prof. Clark Sorensen, director of the Center for Korean Studies at the Jackson School.

Between those two attacks, Kim Jong Il promoted his son to the rank of four-star general. The elder Kim had suffered a stroke two years earlier, and the transition of power had begun.

What happens next? Safe to say the essential puzzlement is subject to great speculation at the highest diplomatic levels in the U.S. State Department and in China, Japan, Russia and South Korea.

The northern half of the peninsula remains a murky, chaotic place, with a robust military and a population subject to episodes of starvation. Sorensen points out the Dear Leader presided with iron-fisted rule through a famine in 1990s that claimed 600,000 lives. Severe food shortages persist.

Another round of humanitarian food aid is under consideration by the U.S. via five American non-governmental organizations, including Mercy Corps and World Vision, who helped in 2008-2009. The U.N. may also be involved again. ...

Resumption of food aid by the U.S. sends its own message of an openness to change, by all sides.

The Vindicator, Youngstown, Ohio, on dysfunctional Congress:

... Targeted tax cuts aimed at encouraging people or corporations to invest in the United States — rather than sock the money away or divert it overseas — would seem to hold the most promise for job creation, but Washington doesn't seem to be very good at hitting targets.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, his Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and others are now rattling their sabers because the Senate reached an agreement on a tax bill. It's not an agreement to raise taxes in any way on the rich, but an agreement to maintain a 2 percent tax cut for every working American who pays into Social Security. Unless something is done, just about everyone's take-home pay will be cut by 2 percentage points Jan. 1, when the 4.2 percent payroll tax reverts to its normal 6.2 percent.

The House passed a one-year extension of the tax cut, but it couldn't get a majority votes in the Senate because the Republican majority in the House demands spending cuts to cover the cost, while the Democratic majority in the Senate wants to close some tax breaks for the wealthy.

That the House and Senate — or Republicans and Democrats — couldn't reach a compromise on this before the 11th hour only shows how dysfunctional Congress has become. ...

Savannah (Ga.) Morning News on the National Labor Relations Board:

It's a nice try. But don't expect it to go anywhere, except the trash can.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and 10 of his colleagues sent President Barack Obama a letter, urging him to withdraw the nomination of Lafe Solomon, acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.

That's the same federal board that took unprecedented action by filing a complaint against Boeing, which wanted to expand its aircraft production in South Carolina, a non-union state.

After Boeing made concessions to union workers in the state of Washington, where its main production lines are located, the NLRB called off the attack dogs against the company. However, Mr. Solomon bragged to the Associated Press that he would repeat his high-handed tactics "if we were ever faced with a similar pattern."

Such dictatorial thinking has no place within the NLRB. It's supposed to be an unbiased, adjudicating body that protects the rights of employees and employers. It's not a tool of organized labor.

Obama, of course, isn't going to withdraw Solomon's nomination. The president is counting on Big Labor's help to get re-elected next year.

But it's good to see Chambliss and other senators call out the president for this naked aggression against American businesses that attempt to expand in right-to-work states, which include Georgia.

The federal government shouldn't make these decisions. Instead, the NLRB is giving U.S. companies an excuse to expand their businesses in a direction that hurts all Americans — overseas.

The Journal, Martinsburg, Ky., on presidential coins:

Businesses understand that generating more of a product than customers want is a money-losing proposition.That has never seemed to worry the government, which regularly ignores the law of supply and demand. After all, why worry about wasting taxpayers' money?

President Barack Obama is seeking, on a small scale for Washington, to change that at the Treasury Department.

Bravo!

In 2005, Congress mandated the Treasury Department produce one-dollar coins featuring the likenesses of all U.S. presidents. The idea didn't appeal to consumers, who use fewer than half the 70-80 million coins produced each year. The rest are returned to the Treasury, where they are stored.

Obama is ordering nearly all production of the coins cease. Only as many as collectors want will be minted in the future.

That will save the government about $50 million a year in production and storage costs.

Congress should go the next step and simply cancel the wasteful program altogether.

Los Angeles Times on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

The health care reform law passed last year requires insurers to offer, at a minimum, a set of "essential" benefits to individuals and small groups, including coverage for hospitalization, outpatient care and prescription drugs. The details of what is or is not essential were left to the Department of Health and Human Services to decide.

Recently, however, the department put out a bulletin proposing to let each state come up with its own definition. The move — which shielded the administration from a potential firestorm of criticism from patient advocates on one side and business groups on the other — was politically deft. But creating a patchwork of 50 different standards for health coverage would be bad policy. Administration officials now say the move is merely temporary, and it had better be.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act called for insurers to offer a standardized minimum benefits package to make it easier for consumers to shop for plans and to reduce the number of people with inadequate insurance policies.

The latter problem contributes to the high number of Americans forced into bankruptcy by medical bills. The law lays out 10 categories of services that must be covered, but also says benefits must mirror "a typical employer plan."

Creating such a standard is no easy task. ...

There's also a question of fairness. Because the law requires the federal government to provide subsidies to make the basic policy affordable for the working poor, a state that defines more benefits as "essential" will draw larger federal subsidies.

The bulletin released by HHS says the agency will reevaluate its approach in 2016, although it doesn't commit to establishing a single national standard at that point. It should. Postponing the battle over essential benefits may buy time for states to focus on other important requirements of the law, such as creating an exchange for the uninsured to shop for policies. But Congress was right to call for a national standard, and the sooner HHS can develop one, the better.