Employers' Bitter Pill
The Los
Angeles Times' top national story examines whether economists are able
to assess accurately the global economy's health. Growing pressure on employers
to cover the cost of birth control as part of employee benefits is the New York Times'
off-lead and top national story. The Washington Post early edition's top national article
details a Clinton administration plan to topple Saddam Hussein.
The LAT reports that Japanese economic woes and decreased U.S.
production have economists scratching their heads over the health of the world
economy. Current methods of economic diagnosis are being questioned, and a
global recession is seeming ever more possible to skeptical economists. The
paper notes that with currency traders in London affecting Indonesian farmers,
local economic events can set off chain reactions felt throughout the entire
world. One prominent macro-economist calls today's globalized economy "almost
beyond human comprehension."
The NYT says that family planning groups are pushing federal and
state lawmakers to mandate employer coverage of contraception as part of
employee healthcare plans. Lobbyists, decrying insurers' coverage of Viagra but
not birth control, have stepped up Congressional lobbying in recent months.
Most employers and insurers oppose mandated coverage--they claim mandates of
any sort make healthcare less affordable for all employees. One anti-mandate
lobbyist states, "It may be good social policy. On the other hand, so is
affordable healthcare."
The WP says that a 27-page report has been prepared in response to
Congress' call for swift action against Saddam Hussein's presidency. The report
discloses U.S. plans to: 1) teach opposition groups organization and
recruitment techniques, 2) fund an exile activities center in London, 3) index
war crimes documents for future trials, and 4) establish an anti-Hussein "Radio
Free Iraq." Measures taken will be small in scale, as Congress has approved a
mere $10 million towards the effort.
Both the NYT and LAT feature front page articles on the
behind-the-scenes negotiations for immunity between the Lewinsky legal team and
Ken Starr. The LAT says Starr was in a hurry to make a deal for key
evidence (i.e., answering machine messages and semen-stained dress) that would
help provide a timely and conclusive end to his investigation. The NYT
reports that Lewinsky's new attorneys--especially tough-talking Jacob A.
Stein--had the tact and clout needed to obtain immunity for their client. The
NYT reports that Stein put it to Starr in no uncertain terms: "I have
one good trial left in me, and I'm going to put it at Monica's disposal."
Finally, an NYT op-ed by Maureen Dowd asks the Lewinsky-related
question that has caused much concern here at TP : what kind of person
asks her mother to keep a semen-stained dress for her? Dowd declines to answer,
but does propose a far-reaching "gross-out theory" in which politics and media,
driven by America's gradual desensitization and need for stimulation, have
fallen to new depths of tastelessness.
